Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates, L.P.

Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates, L.P.

The requirements in Article 11.1(1) of the KORUS FTA constitute jurisdictional limitations on the offer to arbitrate in Article 11.16, and the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is subject to those requirements. The Judge was wrong to conclude otherwise.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Republic of Korea; Respondent/defendant: Elliott Associates, L. P.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals, Interpretation of Treaties, Investment Treaty Arbitration
International Arbitration Treaty Law Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals Interpretation of Treaties Investment Treaty Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic of Korea

Appellant/claimant

Elliott Associates, L. P.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 11.1(1) of the KORUS FTA imposes jurisdictional conditions on the offer to arbitrate under Article 11.16
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction to determine the claim under the Treaty
  3. 3 Whether section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements in Article 11.1(1) of the KORUS FTA constitute jurisdictional limitations on the offer to arbitrate in Article 11.16, and the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is subject to those requirements. The Judge was wrong to conclude otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Korea’s application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is referred back to the Commercial Court for determination on its merits