This study explains that an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction does not arise merely from the existence of an arbitration clause, but depends on compliance with the institution, rules, and formation mechanism agreed by the parties. The dispute concluded with the tribunal held to lack jurisdiction to hear the claim, and the party who initiated proceedings before an incorrect forum ordered to bear the arbitration costs.
Completed
August 2026
Jurisdiction
Cross-border
Work type
International Commercial Arbitration
Document language
Arabic
Client type
International industrial company
Issue: Did the tribunal's jurisdiction arise where one party commenced arbitration before an institution or under rules different from those agreed in the arbitration clause? Challenge: Establish that the dispute concerned the validity of the arbitral process from the outset, and that deviation from the agreed institution and constitution mechanism affects the tribunal's source of authority and renders it incompetent to hear the dispute.
CounselO reviewed the arbitration file on behalf of the respondent, examined the contract, the arbitration clause, the tribunal constitution mechanism and the procedures followed, and focused on a jurisdictional objection. It concluded that commencing proceedings before an institution and under procedures contrary to the arbitration clause attacked the tribunal's source of authority, resulting in its lack of jurisdiction and leading to dismissal and costs against the claimant.
CounselO converted the defence strategy from litigating a large monetary claim to challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction. This protected the respondent from substantive proceedings before an incompetent tribunal; the dispute was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the other party was ordered to bear the arbitration costs.
This sample demonstrates professional experience only. Details may be modified or withheld to protect confidentiality, and past work or outcomes do not guarantee the result of another matter.