Challenging Jurisdiction Under the LCIA Rules – The English Commercial Court Clarifies When Rights May Be Lost

by Reed Smith

Reed Smith

The English Commercial Court has recently clarified the interpretation of time limits under the LCIA Rules 2014 for a party to bring an objection to the substantive jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal.

Where a party has an objection to jurisdiction at the outset of the proceedings, it has until the time for filing its statement of defence to raise its objection.

The court also confirmed that, under the LCIA Rules 2014, potential claimants cannot bring claims in respect of multiple arbitration agreements under one request for arbitration. Where claimants attempt to do so, the request will be invalid and no arbitration will have been commenced.

The decision provides certainty in relation to when parties involved in an LCIA arbitration can exercise the fundamental right of objecting to a tribunal’s jurisdiction. It also underlines the importance of complying with any particular procedural requirements in commencing arbitral proceedings, as failure to do so can have very serious consequences for the defaulting party.

The full judgment can be found at A v. B [2017] EWHC 3417.


The defendant, ‘B’, sold two consignments of crude oil to the claimant, ‘A’, under two separate contracts. Each contract was governed by English law and contained an LCIA arbitration clause.

B claimed that A failed to pay the purchase price. On 23 September 2016, B submitted a single request for arbitration in respect of both contracts (the Request) and paid a single filing fee.

On 31 October 2016, A served its response to the Request (the Response) (1) denying liability, (2) stating that the Response should not be construed as submission to jurisdiction and (3) reserving A’s rights to challenge the jurisdiction of any LCIA tribunal.

On 24 May 2017, A challenged the validity of the Request under section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and article 23 of the LCIA Rules 2014, on the grounds that by purporting to refer both claims under the two separate oil contracts, the Request failed to identify the particular dispute and the particular arbitration agreement to which it related.

On 7 July 2017, the tribunal made a partial award on jurisdiction, dismissing A’s challenge on the grounds it was brought too late (the Award).

On 4 August 2017, A challenged the Award in the English courts under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal).

When can an objection to jurisdiction be made?

The right to object to the substantive jurisdiction of a tribunal is one of the most fundamental rights of any party involved in an arbitral dispute. The question of jurisdiction has potentially far-reaching consequences – such as on the conduct of the proceedings, confidentiality and enforcement.

It is critically important that it is clear to the parties when that right can (and should) be exercised and when it can be lost.

The right to object to the jurisdiction of the tribunal in an arbitration seated in England and Wales is provided by section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and is also often enshrined in the applicable arbitral rules, such as article 23 of the LCIA Rules 2014.

The tribunal in A v. B focussed on the application of article 23 of the LCIA Rules 2014 in dismissing A’s objection to jurisdiction. Article 23.3 requires that any challenge to jurisdiction “shall be raised as soon as possible but not later than the time for [the Respondent’s] Statement of Defence”.

In applying this provision, the tribunal held that, in cases where a respondent knows of an objection from the moment it receives a request for arbitration, “as soon as possible” under article 23 ordinarily means no later than the point of filing the response to the request.

The tribunal took the view that a party cannot keep open its right to object to the tribunal’s jurisdiction until after the time for filing the response, simply by reserving its position on jurisdiction.

As A had raised its objection after it served the Response, the tribunal held that A’s challenge was made too late and should be dismissed.

In overturning the Award, the court emphasised that the starting point in considering whether an objection to jurisdiction has been made out of time is under sections 31 and 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996. These are mandatory provisions that apply to all arbitrations seated in England and Wales and it is not possible to contract out of these provisions.

In particular, section 31(1) provides that a party must raise any objection at the outset of the proceedings “not later than the time he takes the first step in the proceedings to contest the merits of any matter in relation to which he challenges the tribunal’s jurisdiction”. Importantly, section 31(1) does not require it being made “as soon as possible”. In arbitrations under the LCIA Rules 2014, which require formal pleadings, “the first step in proceedings to contest the merits” is the statement of defence, not the response.

The court held that, as a matter of interpretation, article 23.3 does not impose a stricter deadline than that under section 31(1). The correct interpretation of article 23.3 is that a respondent must file its objection to substantive jurisdiction by the time it serves its statement of defence.

Can parties agree a shorter deadline?

Even if article 23 of the LCIA Rules 2014 does not impose a shorter deadline than that under section 31(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, could parties to an arbitration nonetheless agree to apply a shorter deadline?

In A v. B, the court did not have to decide this issue. However, the court stated that, had it been necessary to do so, it would have held that section 31(1) takes precedence over any agreement between the parties.

The court considered that section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996 – which provides that a party will lose the right to object to jurisdiction where it does not do so by the time allowed under the arbitration agreement, by the tribunal, or under the Arbitration Act 1996 – had the effect of applying the longest deadline available under these various sources, not the shortest.

Although not a binding decision on this point, these comments provide a strong indication that parties will not be able to enforce a shorter deadline for raising an objection to substantive jurisdiction than the time for contesting the merits set out under section 31(1).

Can a party refer multiple disputes under one request?

A argued that B’s Request could not validly commence claims under each contract as, under the LCIA Rules 2014, a request for arbitration must identify “the dispute” to which it relates. A argued that B had attempted to refer two separate disputes, under two arbitration clauses, in respect of two separate contracts and, therefore, failed to identify the particular dispute to which the Request related.

While B accepted that an LCIA arbitration can only cover a dispute under one arbitration agreement, it argued that its Request commenced two separate arbitrations – one in relation to each contract.

As a general point of English law, it is possible for parties to agree an arbitration clause that allows them to commence a number of arbitrations under a single request. However, where an arbitration clause incorporates a specific set of arbitral rules, such as the LCIA Rules, any request must comply with the requirements under those rules.

Article 1.1 of the LCIA Rules 2014 provides that commencement of “an arbitration” requires delivery of “a written request” including details of “the Arbitration Agreement”, “the nature and circumstances of the dispute” and confirmation that “the registration fee...has been or is being paid”.

On this basis, the court held that the LCIA Rules 2014:

  1. treat a request as giving rise to a single arbitration and the formation of a single tribunal only;
  2. do not allow for the commencement of multiple arbitrations by submitting one request and paying one registration fee; and
  3. do not allow for consolidation of claims without the consent of the other party or a decision of the LCIA Court, through bringing multiple claims under one request.

Consequently, the court held that B’s request was ineffective in its attempt to refer separate disputes to a single arbitration and was invalid.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith

Reed Smith on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.