JSC “Kazan Oil Plant” v Aves Trade DMCC

For an arbitration appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the 28-day period normally runs from the date of the award being challenged. Where that award has itself undergone an arbitral appeal or review, time may run from the result of that process. An earlier arbitral appeal concerning a different award does not postpone time for challenging the later appeal award. An extension of time requires particular attention to the length and explanation of the delay, measured against the statutory 28-day period. A legal misunderstanding is less readily excused where established authorities and professional guidance were available.

The claimant sought to bring a section 69 appeal against a FOSFA Board of Appeal award. The award was dated 26 March 2025 but was released and received only after payment of outstanding fees. The claim form was issued on 8 May 2025, precisely 28 days after receipt but 43 days after the award.

The claimant applied for a declaration that the appeal was in time or, alternatively, an extension under section 80(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The defendant applied to strike out the appeal as out of time. The issues were whether time ran from the date of the appeal award or its receipt, and whether time should be extended.

1. The claimant’s application failed. The defendant’s application succeeded and the claim was struck out.

2. Section 70(3) establishes a primary rule that an application or appeal under sections 67, 68 or 69 must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award. Its second limb applies where the award being challenged has undergone an arbitral appeal or review. It extends time pending the outcome of that process.

3. The relevant award was the FOSFA Appeal Award, not the earlier first-tier award. When the Appeal Award was issued, no further arbitral appeal or review was available. Time therefore began on 26 March 2025. Receipt of the award on 10 April 2025 did not restart or postpone the period.

4. This construction was consistent with the statutory context. Challenges concern an award containing the tribunal’s reasons, as required by section 52(4). Sections 55(3) and 56(1) did not alter the analysis. The authorities also supported treating FOSFA and GAFTA appeals as falling in principle within the phrase “arbitral process of appeal or review”, but only in relation to the award that was the subject of the court challenge.

5. Although the sanctions-related difficulty in paying for release of the award was excusable, the total delay was 15 days, exceeding half the statutory period. The claimant failed to use the remaining time effectively. The court considered the mistake insufficiently excusable given the authorities, textbooks and available English counsel. Applying the section 80(5) principles, no extension was granted.

not stated in the judgment.