David Gluck v Chaim Yaakov Endzweig & Anor

An arbitration agreement must contemplate an award that will become final and binding. Party autonomy permits agreed appellate or review mechanisms, but it does not permit a tribunal to alter an award indefinitely so that enforcement is never possible. An unlimited power to amend, add to or change an award is therefore repugnant to an agreement for final arbitration. The offending clause may be severed, leaving the arbitration agreement effective and engaging the statutory default regime for correction and additional awards under the Arbitration Act 1996. Corrections or amendments must comply with the statutory time limits. An award unaffected by a timely correction remains enforceable.

Mr David Gluck sold shares in Net Pex Ltd to Evertop Limited, with Mr Chaim Yaakov Endzweig acting as guarantor. The parties referred disputes concerning the purchase price to the Beth Din and agreed that it could amend, add to or change its judgment at any time.

The Beth Din made a Second Award, followed by a later Third Award which reduced the sum payable. HHJ Pelling KC had permitted enforcement of the Second Award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In [2025] EWHC 798 (Comm), HHJ Keyser KC set that order aside, holding that the parties had agreed a wider, untimed power of review. The central issues were the compatibility of that clause with the Act, its severability, and the enforceability of the Second Award.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal, in the leading judgment of Dingemans LJ, with Phillips and Lewis LJJ agreeing, restored the order permitting enforcement of the Second Award.
2. An arbitration agreement must contemplate an award which becomes final and binding. The words permitting the parties to agree otherwise in section 58(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 allow an agreed arbitral appeal or review process, including institutional review, but cannot permit an award never to become final. This accords with K v S [2015] EWHC 1945 and IS Prime Ltd v TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 3375 (Comm), [2021] Bus. L.R. 493.
3. The court should respect party autonomy and give effect to the agreement as a whole where possible. However, the unlimited amendment clause could not be restricted to interim awards. Nor could the difficulty be cured by the tribunal declaring itself functus officio or declaring an award final, since the clause would permit those decisions to be altered.
4. Section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is non-mandatory, but any agreed power to correct or supplement an award remains subject to an implied requirement of eventual finality. The unlimited clause was repugnant to the parties’ agreement for final arbitration. It was rejected, while the remainder of the arbitration agreement survived. The statutory default provisions therefore applied. The time limits in sections 57(4) and 57(5) could not be extended indefinitely.
5. The Beth Din had not validly amended the Second Award within the applicable default time limits. The later Third Award therefore did not prevent enforcement of the Second Award. The agreement was not converted into a common-law contractual mechanism outside the Act.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2026] EWCA Civ 145, the appeal was allowed and the order permitting enforcement of the Second Award was restored.
2. London Circuit Commercial Court (KBD) — In [2025] EWHC 798 (Comm), HHJ Keyser KC set aside HHJ Pelling KC’s earlier order permitting enforcement under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996.