UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23]
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the second respondent (arbitrator) had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Unsigned agreement, arbitration clause, services rendered"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant waived its right to file any further submissions in relation to the preliminary point","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Email correspondence, failure to indicate desire to file reply"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral ruling on jurisdiction. The dispute arose from an unsigned agreement containing an arbitration clause. The applicant argued the unsigned agreement was invalid and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. The arbitrator found she had jurisdiction, ruling the unsigned agreement was binding as services were rendered under it.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases