The recent Commercial Court decision in Friedhelm Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Limited [2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm) reaffirms the importance of deadlines for appeals, regardless of whether those arise from the Arbitration Act 1996, the arbitration agreement or rules set by the arbitral bodies. Once again, the Court emphasises the finality of the arbitral awards and a requirement for strict compliance with the time limits. In this case, the Court refused to accept that a delay in the communication of an arbitral award paved the way to a successful application for an extension of time.
This case should serve as a reminder to legal advisors to submit appeals promptly, as the window between the delivery of the decision and the deadline is often extremely narrow.
The Arbitration Act 1996 underpins arbitration in England and Wales. Although section 70(3) of the Act defines a time limit to appeal as 28 days, arbitral bodies commonly override such provision with a strict “no appeal” policy.
Hence, it might be crucial to incorporate similar provisions into an arbitration agreement, which would then take precedence.
Background of the case
On 19 December 2003, a Deed of Indemnity (“Deed”) was entered into between Mr Eronat and the Respondent related to oil and gas exploration in Chad. The Deed included a contractual arbitration agreement, which referred disputes to the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”).
Although rule 26.8 of the LCIA rules exclude rights of appeal, the arbitration agreement itself allowed appeals within 30 days of the award being made.
Eventually, a dispute arose, which resulted in the arbitral proceedings between Mr Eronat and the Respondent, which resulted in an award that Mr Eronat was seeking to appeal.
The award was made on 11 April 2024. On 16 May 2024, Mr Eronat filed a request to appeal the award, 5 days after the deadline had passed.
Facts of the case
Mr Eronat presented two arguments for a delayed appeal as follows.
He argued that the date on when the award was made was 16 April on the basis that the notification of the award was electronically sent out on that date and that the subsequent correspondence between the legal advisor of Mr Eronat and one of the tribunal members served as evidence of the fact that the Tribunal had agreed that the award was made on 16 April.
The Act provides a clear distinction between when the award is made and when the parties are notified, and time for appeal starts running from the time an award is made.
The Decision
Mr Justice Bryan points out that Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of time limits in the arbitration process.
This emphasises the commitment to uphold the finality of the arbitration, especially in the absence of any justification of a delay.
In respect to the arguments presented, the argument of the delivery was deemed “hopeless,” as the award expressly stipulated that “this partial award is made and signed on 11 April 2024”. The correspondence with the Tribunal did not suggest a reason to assume otherwise.
This judgement underlines the importance of strict compliance with the procedural rules in the arbitration agreements and provisions in the Arbitration Act 1966.
