Abstract

Over the years, multi-tier dispute resolution clauses have become common in long-term, multi-party and cross-border commercial contracts. This article: first, discusses benefits and risks associated with the use of multi-tier clauses as well as questions surrounding their enforceability; second, answers whether non-compliance with intermediary tiers in multi-tier clauses raises a question of substantive/threshold ‘jurisdiction’ of the arbitral tribunal or is simply a matter of ‘admissibility’ of claims (“jurisdiction admissibility dichotomy”); third, surveys how national courts and arbitral tribunals have approached the jurisdiction versus admissibility debate; fourth, considers the significance of two recent national court decisions that have settled this debate: Republic of Sierra Leone v. SL Mining Ltd. (English High Court decision of 15 February 2021) and C v. D (Hong Kong High Court decision of 24 May 2021); fifth, highlights Indian courts’ varying approaches in appreciating the jurisdiction-admissibility dichotomy and stresses the need to recalibrate the Indian lens towards this dichotomy in light of Sierra Leone and C v. D; and finally, concludes with the hope that Sierra Leone and C v. D would develop cross-jurisdictional consistency in both academic and judicial stances on the jurisdiction admissibility dichotomy, burgeoning certainty for parties’ utilizing multi-tier dispute resolution clauses.