C v D: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify the Distinction Between Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Abstract

The distinction between issues of jurisdiction and admissibility is at the heart of arbitration law due to the role it plays in defining the relationship between tribunals and the courts of the seat. Nevertheless, there has long been controversy as to the foundation of the distinction and on which side of the line the issue of alleged non‐compliance with pre‐arbitration steps falls. C v D offered a rare opportunity for an apex court to consider the distinction between issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, and to resolve these controversies. Whilst the judgment provides certainty on some matters, the reasoning adopted creates more confusion than it resolves and is unlikely to be the final word on the matter.