Abstract
Abstract Since the implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in 1985, its jurisprudence has been developed in a broad array of aspects amongst which is the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility. It has been said that the distinction is a useful tool in adjudicating the issue of whether an arbitral award should be set aside by a domestic court—but is it necessarily so? In C v D (2023) 26 HKCFAR 216, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal had the opportunity to revisit the usefulness of the distinction. Given that the Court was divided on the issue, C v D not only provides two lines of thought for the international arbitration community to reflect on the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility but also provides a reference for Model Law jurisdictions in deciding future cases.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
