Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1054

Charles Sorensen (instructed by Leverets) for the Appellant

LORD JUSTICE MALES:

• This application for permission to appeal is concerned with the interpretation of a contractually agreed time limit for an appeal to the court under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The parties agreed that either of them could appeal to the court, but stipulated a time limit of 30 days ‘after the decision is rendered’. If that means that an appeal had to be brought within 30 days from the date when the award was provided to the parties, the appeal was in time. But if it means that time ran from the date when the award was made, the appeal was five days too late.

• Mr Justice Bryan held that time ran from the date when the award was made. He went on to hold that the parties had excluded the right to make any application for an extension of the time for appealing and that, even if they had not done so, he would not have granted an extension as a matter of discretion.

• The effect of these decisions was that the appeal by Mr Friedhelm Eronat from the arbitrators’ award was dismissed. The judge refused to grant permission to appeal to this court, so Mr Eronat has asked us to do so.

• A question arises whether, in view of section 69(8) of the 1996 Act, this court has power to grant permission to appeal, but it is unnecessary to answer that question, on which we did not hear oral argument, because it is clear that the judge’s decision was correct. We therefore informed the parties at the conclusion of the hearing that, even on the assumption that this court has jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal, such permission would be refused. This judgment sets out my reasons for joining in that decision.

Background

• I need say very little about the parties’ underlying dispute. It arises out of a Deed of Indemnity dated 19^th December 2003 (the ‘2003 Deed of Indemnity’) which was entered into between Mr Eronat, CNPC International (Chad) Ltd (‘CNPC’), Cliveden Petroleum Co Ltd (‘Cliveden’), and a third party, CITIC Energy Inc (‘CITIC’). It was governed by the laws of Hong Kong, but provided for arbitration with an English seat in accordance with the LCIA Rules.

• The 2003 Deed of Indemnity was part of a transaction whereby CNPC acquired a 25% share in Cliveden from Mr Eronat, who had previously been its 100% shareholder. Later, in 2006, CNPC acquired what was then Mr Eronat’s remaining 50% stake in Cliveden, together with the 25% stake held by CITIC, with the result that it became the 100% owner of Cliveden.

• On 3^rd April 2006 Mr Eronat, CNPC and Cliveden concluded a Deed of Release, governed by English law, releasing Mr Eronat from all claims, liabilities or causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the ownership of shares in Cliveden.

• In 2018 a third party (‘Carlton’) brought a claim against CNPC and Cliveden, who sought in turn to be indemnified against that claim pursuant to the 2003 Deed of Indemnity. That gave rise to a dispute between CNPC and Cliveden on the one hand and Mr Eronat on the other whether Carlton’s claim fell within the scope of the indemnity in the 2003 Deed of Indemnity and, if it did, whether it had been released by the 2006 Deed of Release.

• On 30^th November 2021 CNPC and Cliveden filed a Request for Arbitration with the LCIA pursuant to the LCIA Rules 2020, claiming to recover from Mr Eronat the US $324 million which had been paid to Carlton under the terms of a settlement concluded between them and Carlton. The claim was made under the 2003 Deed of Indemnity.

• The arbitrators found in favour of CNPC and Cliveden, awarding them the US $324 million which had been paid to Carlton together with interest and costs, as well as making various declarations.

Continue reading this Judgment here.