Facts and procedural choice
An employer and contractor disputed a railway design-and-build contract. The employer participated in the arbitration and contested jurisdiction. The tribunal determined the relevant objections in a separate preliminary ruling, PO5. The employer maintained its disagreement but did not seek judicial review within the period applicable to that ruling, then sought to set aside the final award.
Why repeated objections did not replace an application
The Court distinguished maintaining an objection before the tribunal from using the separate judicial remedy. Model Law Article 16(3) and Singapore’s International Arbitration Act section 10(3) provide a specific review route for a preliminary jurisdiction ruling. Missing its 30-day period precluded reliance on the same ground in later setting-aside proceedings. Repeating the objection did not restore that route.
Disposition and nature of the bar
The setting-aside application was dismissed; paragraph 196 records the disposition. Paragraphs 57 and 73–76 distinguish statutory preclusion from waiver by conduct. The Court did not accept the alternative waiver argument: the employer had maintained its objections. That did not remove the consequences of failing to use the timely court-review procedure.
Limits of the decision
Thirty days is not the general time limit for setting aside a final award. The analysis concerns a participating party, a preliminary ruling and repetition of the same ground. It cannot automatically be extended to non-participating respondents, every enforcement defence or Russian procedure. Identify the type of ruling, applicable law and available court remedy first: see jurisdiction objections.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.