Case Digest No. 24 · Arbitration
Unlimited amendment clauses and final arbitration awards
Gluck v Endzweig and Evertop Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 145
The Court of Appeal held that an unlimited amendment clause was repugnant to the requirement for a final and binding award and could not be saved by section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Court of Appeal
[2026] EWCA Civ 145
March 2026
Decision at a glance
The question, answer and consequence.
- Legal question
- The central issue was unlimited amendment clauses and final arbitration awards.
- Court's answer
- The Court of Appeal held that an unlimited amendment clause was repugnant to the requirement for a final and binding award and could not be saved by section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- Practical consequence
- The Court of Appeal considered the effect of a broad amendment power after a final arbitral award. It provides guidance on finality, contractual drafting and the narrow circumstances in which an arbitral outcome may be altered.
Factual background
This case concerned an award of a Beth Din (sometimes referred to as a Beis Din) Chosen Mishpot (the Jewish Rabbinical Court for civil and financial disputes) of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations in London pursuant to section 66 Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration clause was contained in a share purchase agreement (see right). The Appellant (Mr Gluck) sold a 50% shareholding in a company to the Respondent company (Evertop Ltd), with the purchase price guaranteed by the Respondent (Mr Endzweig). A dispute arose regarding reductions in the instalments payable and two arbitrators were appointed pursuant to the arbitration clause. A further ‘arbitration agreement’ was made by the parties, appointing two Rabbis as arbitrators and recording that the deed would ‘be valid according to the Arbitration Act…’ and the Beth Din had the authority to ‘amend and add to and change the Judgement they have given at any time’. ISSUE Whether it was possible to interpret an arbitration agreement to give effect to its provisions both that the agreement would amount to an enforceable arbitration agreement and that the arbitrators could amend, add to and change any award they made at any time, either as a matter of interpretation or under section 57 Arbitration Act 1996. FIRST AND SECOND AWARDS MADE BY THE BETH DIN Hearings took place before the Beth Din and an award, referred to as a Psak, was made confirming that the Respondents were entitled to a price reduction under a schedule of the share purchase agreement. The Beth Din directed that there should be a further hearing to calculate the rate of the reduction. A further award was made at that subsequent hearing, with the Beth Din holding that the Respondents should pay a reduced sum of £429,228.03 to the Appellant. ORDER OF HHJ PELLING KC 8 NOVEMBER 2024 A without notice application by the Appellant seeking an order under section 66 Arbitration Act 1996 for permission to enforce the award and for a
Issue
The central issue was unlimited amendment clauses and final arbitration awards.
Procedural history and reasoning
to be entered in the terms of the award was granted by order of HHJ Pelling KC. THIRD AWARD MADE BY THE BETH DIN The Beth Din issued an amended award, reducing the sum payable to a total amount of £258,974.85. JUDGMENT OF HHJ KEYSER KC [2025] EWHC 798 (Comm) The Respondents applied to set aside the order made by HHJ Pelling KC pursuant to CPR 62.18(10), on the basis that the second award was not final as it was being reviewed by the Beth Din and because the Appellant had breached his duty of full and frank disclosure. HHJ Keyser KC granted the application to set aside the enforcement order, holding that the parties had conferred on the tribunal a power to amend its award broader than the power envisaged by the default provisions of section 57 Arbitration Act 1996 (see left) and which was not subject to any deadline.
ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 57 (1) The parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal to correct an award or make an additional award. (2) If or to the extent there is no such agreement, the following provisions apply. (3) The tribunal may on its own initiative or on the application of a party - (a) correct an award so as to remove any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission or clarify or remove any ambiguity in the award, or (b) make an additional award in respect of any claim (including a claim for interest or costs) which was presented to the tribunal but was not dealt with in the award.
These powers shall not be exercised without first affording the other parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the tribunal. (4) Any application for the exercise of those powers must be made within 28 days of the date of the award or such longer period as the parties may agree. (5) Any correction of an award shall be made within 28 days of the date the application was received by the tribunal or, where the correction is made by the tribunal on its own initiative, within 28 days of the date of the award or, in either case, such longer period as the parties may agree. (6) Any additional award shall be made within 56 days of the date of the original award or such longer period as the parties may agree. (7) Any correction of an award shall form part of the award.
Decision and key points
The Court of Appeal held that an unlimited amendment clause was repugnant to the requirement for a final and binding award and could not be saved by section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- An unlimited amendment clause in an arbitration agreement could not be saved by section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
- The clause was repugnant to the requirement for a final and binding award.
Why this decision matters
The Court of Appeal considered the effect of a broad amendment power after a final arbitral award. It provides guidance on finality, contractual drafting and the narrow circumstances in which an arbitral outcome may be altered.
Particularly relevant to: Arbitration counsel, award creditors, corporates and contract drafters.