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.