In Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Cliveden Petroleum Co Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 105, the English Court of Appeal recently delivered a judgment clarifying the meaning of the term “rendered” when it comes to arbitration awards.  

The background to the issue

By way of overview of the background to the case:

• The claimant entered into a deed of indemnity with the defendants, as part of a wider oil and gas exploration transaction – the deed of indemnity contained a (London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration clause.
• A dispute arose over whether a third-party claim was covered by the indemnity and whether it had been released, leading to arbitration proceedings.
• The arbitral tribunal granted an award in favour of the defendants – it was made on (and dated) 11 April 2024.  That award was then communicated to the parties by the LCIA Secretariat five days later, on 16 April 2024.
• The arbitration agreement specified that the parties could appeal the decision to the English Court “within 30 days after the decision is rendered”.
• The claimant filed an appeal on 16 May 2024 which was 30 days after receipt of the award, but 35 days after the award was made (and dated).

The key question for the court was whether the term “rendered” (from which the deadline to file an appeal would flow) meant the date the award was made (i.e. 11 April 2024, in which case the claimant’s appeal was out of time), or the date the award was communicated to the parties (i.e. 16 April 2024, in which case the claimant’s appeal was timely).

The Commercial Court’s decision

In the first instance, the Commercial Court held that the term “rendered” referred to the date the award was made, not when it was communicated to the parties. The claimant therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the first instance judgment that the word “rendered” in the arbitration agreement referred to the date the tribunal made the award, being 11 April 2024, rather than the later date on which it was communicated to the parties.

As such, because the agreement expressly required any appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to be brought “within thirty days after the decision is rendered”, the 30-day deadline fell on 11 May 2024, meaning that the claimant’s appeal, filed on 16 May 2024, fell outside the contractually agreed time limit.

The court also ruled that since the parties had contracted to limit the statutory appeal right, the court had no discretion to extend the deadline, so the claimant’s appeal could not proceed.

Lessons learned from the Court of Appeal’s decision

This case underlines the need for clarity and precision in formulating arbitration agreements, especially when it comes to time limits for appeals. Agreeing to a contractual time limit can leave parties with less time than expected to prepare an appeal and removes any scope for the court to extend deadlines under the Arbitration Act 1996.

There are a number of key lessons for commercial parties arising from this decision:

• If your arbitration agreement uses wording similar to that of this decision (i.e. using the term “rendered” or similar), be aware that the deadline may run from the date the award was made, if that falls earlier than the date it was delivered.
• If you are agreeing a contractual time limit in your arbitration agreement, ensure it is clear whether the deadline runs from the date of award or the date of its communication.
• If you are agreeing to any specific terms in your arbitration agreement (such as, in this case, waiving the right to appeal outside the agreed basis), be mindful that you are potentially overriding the statutory framework which would otherwise apply.
• More generally, try to avoid ambiguous wording like “rendered”, which lacks clarity and can lead to unforeseen consequences.
• Ensure clients and teams are aware of potential timing issues and be prepared to bring an appeal within a short timeframe.
• The English courts will strictly enforce what the parties agreed, regardless of the apparent fairness of the outcome.

Burness Paull has a distinct English law dispute resolution team and regularly acts for clients on complex, high-value and high-profile English law disputes. The partners in our team bring experience from working in some of the world’s largest and most preeminent law firms, including the majority of the Magic Circle, and have been involved in disputes in the English Courts on behalf of clients from, or issues arising in, a myriad of jurisdictions within North and Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Our team is specifically known for expertise in: energy and oil and gas disputes; civil fraud and asset tracing; commercial and contractual disputes; M&A, partnership and shareholder disputes; banking and finance litigation; and real estate litigation.

We are on hand to support you with any actual or potential dispute, whether in the form of a litigation, arbitration or investigation - please get in touch with any of our team to discuss your needs.

Related News, Insights & Events