Kevin Osler v Marlene Osler & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 516
Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor
18 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm)
High Court
A company appealed an arbitration ruling, but the court said they were too late because their contract said they had to appeal within 30 days. The court refused to extend the deadline and allowed the other company to enforce the ruling. Essentially, the contract's terms took priority, and the appeal was dismissed as it was clearly outside the time limit.
Key Facts
- •Claimant appealed a partial arbitration award (Award) under sections 69(1) and 69(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •Defendants applied for reverse summary judgment, arguing the appeal was out of time due to a contractually agreed provision in the 2003 Indemnity.
- •Defendants also applied to enforce the Award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •The 2003 Indemnity contained a clause limiting appeals to 30 days after the decision was rendered and waiving all other rights to appeal to English courts under the Arbitration Act 1996.
- •The Award was made on 11 April 2024, but the Claimant's appeal was filed on 16 May 2024.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles under CPR 24.3; 'no real prospect of success' test as detailed in Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
CPR 24.3, Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Contractual construction principles; words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning (Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24; Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36)
Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24; Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
Arbitration Act 1996: sections 54 (date of award), 55 (notification of award), 66 (enforcement of award), 69 (appeals), 70(3) (time for appeal)
Arbitration Act 1996
Enforcement of arbitration awards: leave should readily be given (Sodzawiczny v McNally [2021] EWHC 3384 (Comm))
Sodzawiczny v McNally [2021] EWHC 3384 (Comm)
Outcomes
Reverse summary judgment granted for Defendants; Section 69 Appeal dismissed.
Claimant's appeal was time-barred under the contractually agreed 30-day limit in the 2003 Indemnity; the court lacked jurisdiction to extend time due to a contractual waiver.
Permission to appeal refused.
The appeal had no real prospect of success; the contractual clause was clear and not of general importance.
Enforcement Application granted.
Leave to enforce the Award as a judgment was readily given.
Similar Cases
Timothy Michael Lord KC & Ors v Haron Angela Jeanette Kinsella & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2748 (Ch)
The French State v The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited
[2023] EWHC 2474 (Comm)
Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Power (Private) Ltd v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited
[2024] EWHC 70 (Comm)
Gregarious Limited v Westgroup Investment Limited
[2024] EWHC 748 (Ch)