End Notes * LLM (Cambridge), Chartered Arbitrator, Barrister and Mediator, Immediate Past President of the Australian Branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance of Alan de Rochefort-Reynolds, MIR (Melb), JD (Melb) in the preparation of this article. 1 Justice Committee, Parliament of New Zealand, Arbitration Amendment Bill: Commentary (2018) 1. 2 Arbitration Amendment Bill 2017 (NZ) Pt 6. The Bill is available online at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2017/0245/latest/DLM7153602.html?src=qs. 3 The Interim Report can be accessed online at: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/reports/document/SCR_80473/arbitration-amendment-bill. 4 Justice Committee, Parliament of New Zealand, Arbitration Amendment Bill: Commentary (2018) 3. 5 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57; [2014] 1 SLR 372. 6 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57; [2014] 1 SLR 372, [210]. 7 Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 212; [2013] 1 SLR 636, [32]. 8 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57; [2014] 1 SLR 372, [203], [219]. 9 Under s 10, a party may apply to the supervisory court to review both a positive and negative preliminary ruling on jurisdiction. In contrast, Article 16(3) only permits court review of a positive preliminary ruling on jurisdiction. 10 Article 34 of the Model Law requires an application to set aside an award to be made within three months of the publication of the award. 11 Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 212; [2013] 1 SLR 636. 12 Article 16(3) provides that: The arbitral tribunal may rule on a plea referred to in paragraph (2) of this article either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits. If the arbitral tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, any party may request, within thirty days after having received notice of that ruling, the court specified in article 6 to decide the matter, which decision shall be subject to no appeal; while such a request is pending, the arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitral proceedings and make an award (emphasis added). 13 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57; [2014] 1 SLR 372, [130]. 14 Sir David A R Williams and Amokura Kawharu, Williams & Kawharu on Arbitration (LexisNexis, 2nd ed, 2017) 216 [7.4.2] (emphasis added). 15 PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGCA 57; [2014] 1 SLR 372, [130]. 16 Paul Foster-Bell, Arbitration Amendment Bill 2017, Members Bill 245-1 [Part 6], http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2017/0245/latest/DLM7153602.html?src=qs. 17 Sir David AR Williams, Arbitration Amendment Bill (2018) [6.10]; Russell McVeagh, Submission: Arbitration Amendment Bill (Bill No 245-1) (2018) [11]–[12]; Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand, Submissions Justice and Electoral Select Committee Arbitration Amendment Bill 2017 (No 245-1) (2018) 6–7. 18 Justice Committee, New Zealand House of Representatives, Arbitration Amendment Bill Interim Report (2018). The Report can be accessed online from the Parliament of New Zealand at: https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_77959/f80351f9e75d33d0351d14991ff81d0c5386112e. 19 Justice Committee, Parliament of New Zealand, Arbitration Amendment Bill: Commentary (2018) 3. 20 Justice Committee, Parliament of New Zealand, Arbitration Amendment Bill: Commentary (2018) 3. 21 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, International Arbitration Practice Guideline: Party Non-Participation (2011) 1 [1], 3 [2]. Available online at https://www.ciarb.org/media/1311/2011partynonparticipation.pdf 22 It is quite clear that in referring to a party ‘[failing to raise] a timely objection to jurisdiction’, Her Honour was referring to a party that holds off making an application to the Court for review of an Arbitral Tribunal’s preliminary ruling on jurisdiction. 23 Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 212; [2013] 1 SLR 636, [141] (emphasis added). See also [133]. 24 United Nations Commission on International Trade, Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 18th sess, UN Doc A/CN.9/264 (25 March 1985). 25 United Nations Commission on International Trade, Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 18th sess, UN Doc A/CN.9/264 (25 March 1985) 39 [9] (emphasis added). 26 Gary B Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer, 2nd ed, 2014) 1105. 27 Section 72, entitled ‘Saving for rights of person who takes no part in proceedings’ reads: (1) A person alleged to be a party to arbitral proceedings but who takes no part in the proceedings may question – a. Whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, b. Whether the tribunal is properly constituted, or c. What matters have been submitted to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. (2) He also has the same right as a party to the arbitral proceedings to challenge an award – a. By an application under section 67 on the ground of lack of substantive jurisdiction in relation to him, or b. By an application under section 68 on the ground of serious irregularity (within the meaning of that section) affecting him; And section 70(2) (duty to exhaust arbitral procedures) does not apply in his case. 28 This situation is expressly considered in the Chartered Institute of Arbitrator’s International Arbitration Practice Guideline: Party Non-Participation (2011) 1 [2]: ‘party non-participation’ should be understood to encompass both a situation where a party never takes any steps in arbitration and a situation where it has initially participated but ceases to do so later’. 29 Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 212; [2013] 1 SLR 636, [146]. 30 As occurred in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46; [2011] 1 AC 743.