Henan FC v. Hildeberto José Morgado Pereira

Portuguese player Hildeberto José Morgado Pereira signed a contract with Chinese club Henan FC on 1 July 2023, running to 31 December 2023, containing a clause on automatic extension subject to specific conditions. When the club notified him on 31 December 2023 that the contract had ended, he disputed this, maintaining the automatic-extension conditions had been met and the club had unilaterally terminated a still-running contract without just cause. He sued before the FIFA Football Tribunal Dispute Resolution Chamber on 15 January 2024; the FIFA DRC partially accepted his claim on 5 April 2024. Henan FC appealed to CAS on 6 May 2024, and the case proceeded through full written pleadings and an oral videoconference hearing on 28 August 2024 — well past a preliminary stage.

After the hearing, the dispute took a turn: on 23 September 2024 the club alleged the player's documents had been manipulated and submitted new evidence, which the player answered with his own new evidence on 8 October 2024. Then, on 17 October 2024, the club informed CAS the parties were close to an amicable settlement; on 28 October 2024 it confirmed a settlement had been reached and stated it considered its own appeal withdrawn as a result. The Sole Arbitrator did not simply accept the club's unilateral say-so: he invited the player to comment on the proposed withdrawal. On 1 November 2024, the player did not object and did not submit any position of his own.

Only at that point did the Sole Arbitrator, Ken E. Lalo, rule the appeal terminated. His reasoning addressed a genuinely useful procedural question: the CAS Code contains no express provision on withdrawing an appeal, making it a procedural question governed by Article 182 of Switzerland's Private International Law Act. He held that a unilateral withdrawal at a late stage — after full pleadings and a full hearing — is not something the withdrawing party can simply declare into effect: the other party's consent is required. In this case, that consent was supplied by the player's own silence when given the direct opportunity to object.

The appeal was terminated, with the club bearing the costs of the arbitration and each side responsible for its own legal fees. The case is a precise illustration of the actual rule: not that late-stage withdrawal is barred outright, but that it requires the other party's consent — which can be given expressly, or, as here, through a deliberate choice not to object when squarely asked.