On 20 February 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Gluck v Endzweig and Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 145.
The parties had made an arbitration agreement which stated that the tribunal (a rabbinic court, or Beth Din) had the power to add to, amend or change an award it had made “at any time”.
An award was made in May 2024, by which the tribunal held that the respondents should pay a sum of money to the appellant. Shortly after the award had been sent to the parties, the tribunal told the parties that it was reviewing the figures in the award.
Five months later, no amended award having been produced, the appellant applied to enforce the award. The respondents applied to set aside the enforcement order and, shortly before that application was due to be heard, the tribunal produced an amended award which significantly reduced the sum payable to the appellant.
At first instance, HHJ Keyser KC, sitting in the London Circuit Commercial Court, granted the respondents’ application to set aside the enforcement order. The judge held that the parties’ agreement was clear as to the scope of the tribunal’s power to amend its award, and effect should be given to it. He further held that the tribunal’s power to change its award “at any time” did not prevent an award from becoming final, because the tribunal was able to declare its jurisdiction exhausted.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal and reinstated the order enforcing the original award.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the parties’ agreement was incompatible with the Arbitration Act, because it was inconsistent with the finality of awards. Although the tribunal could declare its jurisdiction exhausted, the breadth of the party-agreed amendment power was such that the tribunal could later change its mind and revisit its award.
It was clear from the arbitration agreement that the parties had intended to arbitrate in a manner governed by the Act and capable of producing enforceable awards. In those circumstances, the party-agreed amendment power was repugnant to the remainder of the arbitration agreement and was to be disregarded.
The tribunal had therefore been limited to amending its award using the default correction provisions contained in section 57 of the Act. No such corrections had been made by the 28-day deadline and the original award was therefore final and enforceable.
The judgment can be found here.
Carola Binney acted unled for the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal, instructed by Sydney Fulda of Gunnercooke.
