The decision in Carr highlighted the need for amendment to these articles to move in line with the foreign approaches to the adoption of the Model Law provisions. The narrowing of articles 34(2)(a)(i) and 36(1)(a)(i) will limit the Court’s scope to set aside or not recognise/enforce an arbitral award which might otherwise be unenforceable due to procedural provisions being in conflict with the Act in circumstances where there is clear agreement of the parties to submit a dispute to arbitration. The proposed amendment adopts language different from the Model Law but is the minimum change necessary to correct the problem raised in Carr. Amendments to articles 34(2)(a)(iv) and 36(1)(a)(iv) would address the views of the majority in Carr that the language regarding non-derogation in article 34(2)(a)(iv) has no wider application beyond Schedule 1, and would bring New Zealand law into line with foreign legislation. The article 34(2)(a)(iv) equivalents in Australian legislation (International Arbitration Act 1974 and the Commercial Arbitration Acts in each State), Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance 2011, and the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 apply to the entire Act, not only the Model Law parts of it like our Act. The current limitation under the Act to derogation under Schedule 1 only is flawed and the amendment would ensure that the principle of non-derogation is protected and given proper effect in setting aside and enforcement proceedings. The consequence of failing to raise a timely objection to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction Clearly defining the consequence of not raising an objection to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute in accordance with article 16(3) of Schedule 1 will ensure that objections are raised in a timely manner and cannot be heard or given effect to out of time.