CL-2024-000678 - [2025] EWHC 2531 (Comm)

This judgment is concerned with an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, brought by the Appellant (“AMMENA”) against the Respondent (“AML”).

AML is a well-known manufacturer of luxury cars. AMMENA is its sole distributor in the Middle East and North Africa. AML and AMMENA entered into a Distribution Agreement dated 19 April 2018 (“the Distribution Agreement”). Disputes arose as to a number of matters relating to the Distribution Agreement. These disputes were referred to arbitration in July 2022.

Under the terms of the arbitration agreement in the Distribution Agreement, the arbitration was subject to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as revised in 2013 (“the UNCITRAL Rules”), with the arbitral appointments to be made by the London Court of International Arbitration (“the LCIA”). With the involvement of the parties, the LCIA duly appointed a panel of three arbitrators (the “Tribunal”).

The normal procedural steps were followed, and an evidentiary hearing took place in September 2024. On 2 September 2024, both parties served written opening submissions, accompanied by various other documents including an agreed Glossary and an agreed List of Issues. An evidentiary hearing took place between 16 and 30 September 2024, involving substantial documentation, reasonably lengthy oral submissions and oral evidence from 7 witnesses. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal sent the parties a list of questions to be addressed in closing submissions. The Tribunal received the parties’ written closing submissions on 27 September 2024. In short, it is clear that the Tribunal received a substantial amount of material.

The Tribunal made its award on 18 November 2024 (the “Award”). Despite the impressive promptness with which the Award was produced, it is a lengthy and detailed document which is well-structured and clearly reasoned. It runs to 140 pages of Reasons, with the Award itself (i.e., the dispositive part) contained in paragraph 398, on pages 141-144. There are also two Appendices – the agreed Glossary and the agreed List of Issues.

The dispositive part, in paragraph 398, decided a number of individual points. AMMENA only challenges one of them, relating to a specific aspect of the interpretation of a single provision in the Distribution Agreement: Article 4(A)(1).

The Distribution Agreement is a one-off contract. The provision in question is bespoke. AMMENA has always accepted that its challenge does not raise a question of general public importance. It sought leave to appeal on the basis that the Tribunal’s interpretation of Article 4(A)(1) was obviously wrong, and was granted leave on this basis.

The respective arguments were presented to me by Mr Jeff Chapman KC for AMMENA, and by Mr Iain Quirk KC for AML, with assistance from their respective juniors. The assistance that I received from both sides was exemplary: clear, to the point and succinct. I am extremely grateful.