arbitration act 1996 – International Arbitration

The decision in Friedhelm Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Limited [2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm) underlines, with some emphasis, the strictness of the deadlines applied in relation to appeals brought under the Arbitration Act.

In this case the parties had contractually varied the period for making an appeal. They agreed on 30 days, overrising the 28 days in section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act.

The contractual 30-day period (as with the Act’s 28 day period) ran from the date the award was “made”, and not from when the parties received a copy of the award.

In this case the Award was made on 11 April, and was received on 16 April. The appellant to the English court filed its appeal on 16 May, which would have been 30 days from notification of the award, but outside that period when counting from the date of the award itself

The court granted an application to summarily dismiss the appeal as being time barred. The court also refused an application for a retrospective extension, holding that it was an “archetypal” case where no such extension should be given. This was in part because the party had not put in evidence explaining the delay, or why it was appropriate to grant the extension.

By Oliver Kent

Picture this. You are a Director at a substantial widget manufacturing company. One of your key materials suppliers, with whom you’ve had a relationship for many years, is causing you grief. There have been a number of complaints from customers in recent times about a decline in widget quality, which appear to be the fault of your supplier. However, you’re behind on your payments to the supplier and they are starting to threaten supply, with disastrous effects for the company. A dispute is brewing.

You have been involved with litigation before and have experience of court proceedings. However, when you check with your legal team about next steps, you learn that your agreement with the supplier contains a clause which appears to indicate that all disputes must be referred to arbitration. The clause is perhaps not drafted with the certainty it should and could have been, and it is not clear the extent to which it is enforceable. The issue usually is framed on the basis of whether there is a valid and enforceable agreement to refer disputes to arbitration.

There are also commercial considerations that may be relevant. Is it preferable to litigate in the domestic courts or arbitrate? This may be a commercial call, just as much as a legal one. This blog shares some of the practical considerations around these issues.
Continue reading “Jurisdictional challenges and arbitration clauses – that old chestnut! – The UK perspective”