Although the principal question in C v. D, was whether the Tribunal’s determination of a pre-arbitration procedural requirement is subject to recourse under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) or (iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the case importantly also addresses the whether compliance with the pre-requisite of negotiation before arbitration was a question of admissibility or jurisdiction.

C v. D is therefore an important development in the landmark of Hong Kong as it establishes the tribunal’s prerogative to decide the difference between admissibility and jurisdiction in arbitration. While admissibility addresses whether or not it is appropriate for the case to be decided by the Tribunal, jurisdiction determines whether the Tribunal has the power to do so.