CA-2024-002080 - [2025] EWCA Civ 905

Korea’s principal ground of appeal is that, on a proper interpretation, Article 11.1(1) of the Treaty sets down jurisdictional requirements which must be satisfied in order for there is to be an offer to arbitrate in Section B of Chapter 11 and the Judge was wrong to hold otherwise.

Subsidiary to and supporting that central ground, Korea relies on the following two further arguments:

First, that the Judge erred in introducing into the interpretation of the Treaty the concept of national policy reasons;

Second, the Judge should have found that the interpretation of the Treaty for which Korea contends is supported by “supplementary means of interpretation” within the meaning of Article 32 of the VCLT and that he should have been willing to consider material later in time than the date of signature of the Treaty.