ÐÂÏã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±½á¹û

Research by Dr Martins Paparinskis, Reader in Public International Law at ÐÂÏã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±½á¹ûFaculty of Laws, was cited by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the BBA & Ors v BAZ  judgement delivered on 28 May.

The case concerned a set aside of an international commercial arbitration award. One of the issues that the Court had to consider was the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility in international arbitration, a point of considerable practical importance for determining the scope of review by domestic courts, often thought to extend to jurisdiction but not admissibility.

The Court explained the two ways in which the distinction could be drawn by a quote from a chapter by Dr Paparinskis in the first edition of CL Lim, J Ho, and M Paparinskis, International Investment Law and Arbitration: Commentary, Awards and other Materials () at [75], via a reference to Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited & Ors v Kingdom of Lesotho  where Dr Paparinskis had been cited first. The Court adopted the first approach as the ‘tribunal versus claim’ test, paras 76-77. Applying it, it concluded that a plea of statutory time bar went towards admissibility as it attacked the claim and therefore was not subject to judicial review, paras 80, 84.