Facts
The challenged award, dated 29 September 2014, concerned inseparable improvements to leased property. The new owner knew of the additional agreement submitted to the arbitrators and took some procedural steps but failed to raise a timely jurisdiction objection; the Court also assessed its subsequent inactivity.
Holding
On those facts, the Supreme Court treated the conduct as loss of the objection before the state court. It upheld refusal to set aside the award.
Limits
The arbitration preceded the 2015–2016 reform; the Supreme Court compared the former and newer legislation. Knowledge and actual conduct mattered. The case does not establish that any non-participation amounts to consent to arbitration. See the tribunal-jurisdiction guide for current rules and objection deadlines.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.