Does participation under a jurisdiction reservation make the objecting party liable for the adjudicator's fees?
A jurisdiction objection does not automatically remove fee liability. A party that continues to seek a decision on the merits may incur an express or implied obligation to pay a reasonable share of the adjudicator's charges even while preserving the objection.
Participation can preserve the jurisdiction challenge yet still create a separate obligation to pay for the adjudicator's work
State the jurisdiction objection clearly and reserve it throughout. Then decide whether to withdraw or participate. Continued merits participation may amount to requesting and receiving the adjudicator's services, creating contractual or restitutionary fee liability even if the party never signed the appointment terms. That does not necessarily waive the jurisdiction challenge. Withdrawal may limit future fees, but it does not automatically erase charges already incurred or an existing contractual obligation. Check the appointment, applicable rules, work performed, fee allocation and reasonableness separately.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Clear reservation and no merits participation | Lower risk of implied fee agreement |
| Participation on merits under reservation | Fee liability may arise |
| Signed appointment terms | Express contract governs |
| No signed terms but services accepted | Implied or restitutionary liability possible |
| Withdrawal after work begins | Accrued fees may remain |
The rest of this solution is for members
Fifty of the two hundred contractual solutions are free to read. This is one of the remaining hundred and fifty, which Premium and Pro carry.
See what Premium includesAlready a member? Sign in