CL-2022-000304 - [2025] EWHC 1553 (Comm)

As Foxton J said in Czech Republic v Diag (above) at [40]:

“The characterisation of the issue of whether there was an investment as jurisdictional has long been accepted by investment treaty arbitral tribunals (for the purposes of ascertaining their own jurisdiction), and this issue has also been classified as jurisdictional in English first instance court decisions (for the purposes of determining whether ss.67 or 103(2) of the 1996 Act are engaged): Gold Reserve Inc v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2016] EWHC 153; PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine [2018] EWHC 1797 and The Republic of Korea v. Dayyani and Others [2019] EWHC 3580 (Comm). It has also been accepted as a matter going to an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Swissbourgh Diamond Mines ,,,”

“The consistent practice of the courts in England has been that they will examine or re-examine for themselves the jurisdiction of arbitrators.”: Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan at [96] per Lord Collins JSC, and see also at [26] and [30] per Lord Mance JSC. “[T]he Court will examine the award with care and interest. If and to the extent that the reasoning is persuasive, then there is no reason why the Court should not be persuaded by it”: The Republic of Korea v Dayyani & Ors [2019] EWHC 3580 (Comm) [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212 at [26] per Butcher J.