Swiss Supreme Court does not consider merits of setting aside petition if tribunal declined jurisdiction based on parties' actual consent to terminate arbitration agreement
28 October 2013
Authors: Nathalie Voser
, Sonja Stark-Traber
In decision 4A_305/2013, the Swiss Supreme Court refused to consider the petitioners' challenge of the arbitral tribunal's finding, that the parties had consented to terminate their arbitration agreement.
In a German-language decision dated 2 October 2013 and published on 16 October 2013, the Swiss Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of a petition to set aside an arbitral award in which the arbitral tribunal had found that it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to terminate the arbitration agreement.
The petitioners argued that the award should be set aside on the ground that the tribunal had wrongly declined jurisdiction or alternatively had violated its right to be heard, under Articles 190(2)(b) and (d) of PILA respectively. However, the court held that the tribunal's finding that the parties had actually consented to terminate the arbitration agreement was a finding of fact, not law. As such, it was not capable of review by the Supreme Court. (Decision 4A_305/2013.)
Published in Practical Law Arbitration
Back to overview