746e Summaries Uae - Ebook

Summaries of
UAE COURTS’
DECISIONS
on Arbitration
Edited by:
Hassan Arab
Lara Hammoud
Graham Lovett
Summaries of
UAE COURTS’
DECISIONS
on Arbitration
Edited by:
Hassan Arab
Lara Hammoud
Graham Lovett
Summaries of UAE Courts’ Decisions on Arbitration
Copyright © 2013
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
All rights reserved.
ICC holds all copyright and other intellectual property rights in this work. No part
of this collective work may be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, translated
or adapted in any form or by any means, except as permitted by law, without
the written permission of ICC.
Permission can be requested from ICC through pub@iccwbo.org.
ICC Services
Publications Department
38 Cours Albert 1er
75008 Paris
France
ICC Publication No. 746E

ISBN: 978-92-842-0193-8
CONTENTS
1993
Dubai Court of Cassation Petition No. 91 of 1993
Scope of arbitration agreement. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appointment of arbitrators; Jurisdiction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1994
Appointment of arbitrators................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1995
Applicable procedure in arbitration; Competence of arbitrators;
Indivisibility of award; Pending litigation; Taking of oath;
Validity of arbitration proceedings... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1996
Grounds for annulment of award; Time limit for arbitration proceedings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Time limit for arbitration proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Waiver of right to appeal................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1999
Assignment of arbitration agreement; Capacity to agree to arbitration;
2001
Content of award. ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2002
Jurisdiction; Scope of arbitration agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Jurisdiction. ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 3

2003
Arbitration outside the Court; Fees of the arbitrator;
Grounds for annulment of award; Time limit for arbitration proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Grounds for annulment of award; Taking of oath. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Federal Supreme Court of Cassation Petition
No. 43 of the 23rd Judicial Year (Issued on 13 April 2003)
Federal Supreme Court of Cassation Petition
No. 32 of the 23rd Judicial Year (Issued on 8 June 2003)
Clarification of award; Content of award; Grounds of annulment of award;
Ratification .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2004
Ratification of foreign awards (prior to ratification
by the UAE of the New York Convention). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Form of offer and acceptance to arbitrate; Validity of arbitration agreement;
Capacity to agree to arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Federal Supreme Court Petition No. 118 of the 23rd Judicial Year
Applicable procedure in arbitration; Qualifications of arbitrators; Res judicata. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Federal Supreme Court Petition No. 831 of the 25th Judicial Year
and Petition No. 67 of the 26th Judicial Year (Issued on 23 May 2004)
Content of award; Grounds for annulment of award; Public order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Federal Supreme Court Petition No. 438 of the 23rd Judicial Year
Applicable procedure in arbitration; Content of award;
Grounds for annulment of award. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Jurisdiction. .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Defence of arbitration agreement; Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2005
Dismissal of arbitrator. .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Capacity to agree to arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Immunity of arbitrators; Res judicata; Scope of the arbitration deed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

Attendance of arbitrators at hearings; Deliberation of arbitrators.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Federal Supreme Court Case No. 206 of the 27th Judicial Year
Appointment of arbitrators; ADCCAC rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2006
Time limit for arbitration proceedings; Public order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Capacity to agree to arbitration; Power of attorney; Representation of parties. . . . . . . . . . . 77
2007
Appointment of arbitrators; Grounds for annulment of award .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Grounds for annulment of award . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appointment of arbitrators; Jurisdiction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Content of award; Dissenting awards; Majority awards;
Requirements for signature of arbitrators .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Content of award; Grounds for nullification of award;
Scope of arbitration agreement; Time limit for arbitration proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Applicable procedure in arbitration; Representation of parties .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2008
Grounds for annulment of award; Public order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Appointment of arbitrators; ICC rules of arbitration .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2009
Applicable procedure in arbitration; Grounds for annulment of award;
Minutes of arbitration hearings ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Petition No. 108 of 2009
Separability of arbitration agreement; Appointment of arbitrators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Jurisdiction; Provisional measures; Summary action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Interpretation of award...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Jurisdiction. ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Capacity to agree to arbitration; Time limit for arbitration proceedings;
Power of a court to review merits upon ratification .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Power of Attorney; Representation of parties; Terms of reference;
Unsworn testimony........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2010
Fujairah Federal Court of First Instance Case No. 35 of 2010
Enforcement; Foreign awards; New York Convention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Appeal No. 679 of 2010
Grounds for annulment of award; Independence and impartiality of arbitrators. . . . . . . 111
Defence of an arbitration agreement; Jurisdiction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2011
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Petition Nos. 83, 91, 96 of 2011
Language of the award; Party autonomy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Grounds for annulment of award; Public order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Separability of arbitration agreement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Dubai Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 531 of 2011
Arbitrator acting as a mediator; Grounds for annulment of award. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Commercial agency agreements; Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
2012
Grounds for annulment of award; Public order; DIAC arbitration rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Enforcement; Foreign awards; New York Convention; DIFC/LCIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
INDEX. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
UAE Federal Law Provisions on Arbitration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

FOREWORD
It is my great pleasure to introduce this digest of decisions about arbitration matters

made by the UAE courts over the 20 years between 1993-2012.
The period from which these cases are drawn was one of profound change in the
UAE, not least, in the context of international arbitration, in that it saw the UAE's
accession to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards in 2006. The UAE is regarded as an important centre for
international arbitration. Hardly surprising, therefore, that developments in UAE law,
and the effect and application of the law by the UAE courts, are followed closely in
the international arbitration community.
I applaud the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration, and its Chairman, Essam Al Tamimi,
for their decision to produce this book. For the first time, the decisions, which are the
subject of these reports have been made available to the international arbitration
community in English translation.
Last, but by no means least, I acknowledge and commend the editors, Hassan Arab,
Lara Hammoud and Graham Lovett, all of whom are recognised arbitration
practitioners in the UAE, for the care and effort devoted to the selection and
presentation of the cases, which are the subject of reports in the book.
John Beechey
President, ICC International Court of Arbitration
Paris
March 2013

CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION
As Chair of the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration, it is with great pleasure that I
write the introduction to what I hope will become a respected and useful book of UAE
case law on arbitration.
Having been a practitioner and scholar of arbitration in the United Arab Emirates for
25 years, I have had the benefit of observing the judiciary’s changing attitude to
arbitration and, with it, the growth in popularity of the field itself.
What is important to remember is that the UAE, at the time of publication, has only
just celebrated its 41st birthday as a federation. Therefore, the nation and its judiciary
are still very young. However, in that short space of time, the country has witnessed
astonishing domestic growth across a wide range of sectors. Crucially, the UAE has
also successfully implemented mechanisms to encourage and promote foreign
investment. This success has necessitated the rapid development of the UAE’s legal
system, and both foreign and local investors have been able to take comfort in the
fact that they enjoy a legitimate choice with respect to the forum for the final and
binding resolution of their disputes: the UAE courts, of course, or arbitration – in an
increasingly arbitration-friendly environment.
Perhaps the proudest moment for the UAE was its reservation-free accession to the
New York Convention, a milestone that occurred in 2006. Parties seeking to have their
foreign awards enforced within the UAE are now armed with the knowledge that the
New York Convention has been successfully invoked on numerous occasions. Similarly,
the accession has opened the door for parties armed with UAE awards to seek
enforcement in other applicable New York Convention jurisdictions.
Despite the UAE’s youth, as demonstrated by the collection of judgments in this book,
arbitration practitioners in this jurisdiction already benefit from a body of
jurisprudence that sets forth the UAE’s position on major elements of arbitration. A
collective presentation of the specific requirements of arbitration in the UAE is the
very purpose of this important book.
I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my fellow commission members Hassan Arab,

Lara Hammoud and Graham Lovett in producing this book, which I am confident will
act as a solid guide to arbitration in the UAE.
Essam Al Tamimi
Chair, ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea of putting together this book arose at a meeting of the Steering Committee
of the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration, of which the editors are members. The ICC
UAE Commission on Arbitration was established, among other things, to promote
dispute resolution mechanisms in the UAE through educational events, studies and
networking.
This book has been compiled thanks to the collective work of a group of members of
the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration, who wished to render the UAE courts’
decisions relating to arbitration more accessible and transparent.
This book does not profess to contain an exhaustive list of the UAE courts’ decisions
on arbitration. Nor does it pretend to contain a comprehensive summary of each of
the judgments referred to therein. Rather, the structure of the summaries of the
selected judgments has been designed to give the reader an insight into (i) the facts
of the case; (ii) the principle(s) relied upon by the court to render its decision; and (iii)
the reasoning of the court leading to its decision. These summaries are aimed at
helping arbitration practitioners in the UAE identify the principles set out by the UAE
courts with respect to arbitration.
The editors would like to express their thanks to the members of the “ICC UAE Book
on UAE Courts’ arbitration caselaw” task force, without whom this book would not
exist. They are:
Maryam Khalifa AlFalasi, Advocate
Ghada Qaisi Audi, Fichte & Co Legal Consultancy
Issa Baddour, Dubai International Financial Centre
Gordon Blanke, Habib Al Mulla & Co.
Claire Clutterham, Al Tamimi & Co.
Charlotte Davey, Clyde & Co LLP
Nasser Khasawneh, Eversheds LLP
Karim Nassif, Cotty Vivant Marchisio & Lauzeral
Mohamed Issa Odeh, MIO Law Firm
Habibullah Rizwan, ICC UAE
Tom Wilson, Kilpatrick Townsend Legal Consultancy
The editors would also like to thank Mr. Saeed Obaid Al Jarwan, Secretary General of
ICC UAE as well as Mr. Sami Houerbi, Director for Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East
& Africa, ICC International Court of Arbitration, whom have contributed to the creation
of ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration and have constantly supported its work.
The editors wish also to thank Mr. Essam Tamimi, Chairman of the ICC UAE
Commission on Arbitration, who initiated this project and continuously supported it.
Finally, the editors would like to express their thanks to the ICC, in particular ICC
Publications, which has warmly accepted this book on board.
Hassan Arab, Al Tamimi & Co

Lara Hammoud, Shearman & Sterling LLP
Graham Lovett, Clifford Chance LLP

CO-EDITORS BIOGRAPHIES
HASSAN ARAB
Hassan is the Deputy Managing Partner and Regional Head of Litigation of Al Tamimi
& Company. He obtained his law degree from the Beirut University in Alexandria,
Egypt and a Master’s Degree in International Business from the University of
Wollongong. He also has a Practice Diploma in International Arbitration Law and
International Commercial Law from the College of Law, UK. Hassan has written and
published articles on various topics relating to arbitration and dispute resolution. In
addition, he has authored a number of books including Civil Procedures Law in the
UAE (Volumes I & II) and Articles on Legal Studies. He is a past Chair of the IBA’s Arab
Regional Forum, a member of the IBA’s Legal Practice Division Council and Council
Liaison Officer to the Arab Regional Forum. Hassan is also a member of the Steering
Committee of the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration, a member of the Geographical
Advisory Board of Business Law International and an editorial member of the
International Journal of Arab Arbitration.
LARA HAMMOUD
Lara Hammoud is a Senior Associate in Shearman & Sterling’s International Arbitration
group. She joined the firm in 2008 and has been based at its Abu Dhabi office ever
since. Before joining Shearman & Sterling LLP, Lara spent six years at the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Lara is a French-qualified lawyer and holds a DESS in
International Commercial Law from the University Paris X and an LLM in Commercial
Law from the University of Bristol. Lara is a member of the ICC Commission on
Arbitration and the ICC YAF Regional Coordinating Committee and Vice-Chair of the
Steering Committee of the ICC UAE Commission on Arbitration. Lara acts both as an
arbitrator and as an administrative secretary in arbitration matters and regularly
appears as a speaker at international conferences on international arbitration in Middle
Eastern countries.
GRAHAM LOVETT
Graham is the Regional Managing Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution for the
Middle East Region of Clifford Chance. Prior to his arrival in Dubai in March 2004,
Graham was based at Clifford Chance’s London office. Graham specializes in
commercial arbitration and litigation. He is part of the firm’s highly regarded
International Arbitration Group, a member of the Steering Committee for the ICC UAE,
a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (MCIArb), a former member of the
Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Arbitration Committee, a member of the
DIFC Court User’s Committee, Chairman of the DIFC Authority Legislative Committee
and co-author of the UAE chapter in Encyclopaedia of International Commercial
Litigation (Kluwer). Graham sits as an arbitrator in both domestic and international
arbitrations and is a regular speaker at arbitration conferences across the Gulf.

INTRODUCTION
This book has been long in development. It has progressed to a stage where it is
hoped that it will provide a guide to lawyers, arbitrators and other professionals
practising arbitration within the United Arab Emirates.
Arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism. No two arbitrations are the

same because of the diverse mix of ingredients that make up arbitration proceedings.
The combination of parties, arbitrators, governing law, institutional rules (if any), seat,
language and factual issues is unique to each set of proceedings. At the same time as
fostering flexibility and party autonomy, arbitration as a mechanism for dispute
resolution also employs very specific procedural requirements. Although there exists a
body of jurisprudence, guidelines and rules that could be said to represent
international best practice, each place or juridical seat of arbitration will generally have
its own procedural peculiarities. That being said, the UAE courts have adopted a
certain approach to issues related to arbitration over the years, and it is against this
background that this book has been written.
The book is comprised of a series of judgments issued over the last 20 years by the
Dubai Court of Cassation, the Federal Supreme Court of Cassation, the Fujairah
Federal Court of First Instance and the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation. The judgments
have been carefully selected and summarized with a view to providing the reader with
an insight into both how arbitration works and how it is treated by the judiciary in the
United Arab Emirates. It does not purport to be a comprehensive compendium of
cases. Readers should refer to the original Arabic source judgments for a more
comprehensive analysis of the principles espoused in those judgments.
The legal system of the United Arab Emirates – how does arbitration fit in?
The United Arab Emirates is a Federation of seven Emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai,
Fujairah, Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah and Umm Al Quwain. The Constitution of the United
Arab Emirates was signed on 18 July 1971. The Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah joined the
Federation in 1972.
The Constitution is the founding source of law in the United Arab Emirates. Chapter V
of Part 4 of the Constitution concerns “The Judiciary in the Union and the Emirates”.
The Federal Judiciary is an independent body, as outlined in the Constitution.
All laws and rulings must comply with the Constitution, which guarantees certain
rights. All government bodies, be they federal or local, fall strictly within the ambit of
the Constitution, and it is from there that they derive their powers. Two types of law
exist in the United Arab Emirates: federal and local. Federal laws are applicable in the
United Arab Emirates as a whole. Local laws, decrees and orders only apply to a
particular Emirate. These local laws, decrees and orders are passed and issued by the
ruler of each specific Emirate and will only be applicable to the Emirate concerned.
Each Emirate has its own local government, consisting of municipalities and
departments. Local courts apply both federal law and local laws that have been
enacted by the Emirate concerned. In situations of conflict, federal law prevails.

The legal system of the United Arab Emirates is based on the civil law system. The
principal source of law is a statutory code, namely the UAE Civil Code. There is no
system of binding precedent in the United Arab Emirates. Despite this, decisions of
higher courts, such as the Dubai Court of Cassation, are highly persuasive on the
lower courts (namely the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal). The
persuasive nature of higher court judgments informed the decision to include only
higher court judgments in this book.
The United Arab Emirates does not have a dedicated arbitration law, although a draft
Federal Arbitration Law is currently under discussion. At present, the regime
governing arbitration in the United Arab Emirates is found in a collection of sixteen
articles (203 to 218) in the Civil Procedure Code. The United Arab Emirates
modernized its approach to foreign arbitration awards by acceding to the New York
Convention in 2006. Since its accession, the United Arab Emirates has witnessed the
enforcement of a number of foreign arbitral awards pursuant to the New York
Convention. Some of these judgments are summarized in this book.
Although this book covers only those decisions of the UAE courts, it should also be
mentioned in passing that, in contrast to the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai
International Financial Centre (DIFC) has its own arbitration law and that the courts of
the DIFC, which are based on the common law system, also practise a system of
binding precedent. The DIFC is an independent jurisdiction that has its own
independent civil and commercial laws. The jurisdiction of the DIFC courts has grown
since the inception of the DIFC as a financial free zone, and the relationship between
the DIFC courts and Dubai courts is harmonious. The United Arab Emirates is thus
unique in that it offers parties the choice of two juridical seats: one based in civil law
(Dubai) and the other founded on principles of common law (the DIFC). Judgments
of the DIFC courts are published in English on the DIFC courts’ website and should be
referred to as appropriate.
The United Arab Emirates’ accession to the New York Convention has been
accompanied by the steady and continued growth in popularity of arbitration as an
alternative dispute resolution forum. Although there is further work to be done, the
development, understanding and appreciation now afforded to arbitration means that
the United Arab Emirates is fast becoming a safe arbitral haven within the Middle East.
That in itself underscores the importance of this book.

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS’
DECISIONS 1993-2012

Petition No. 91 of 1993 issued on 23 October 1993
DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Scope of the arbitration agreement
Summary Three parties entered into a general partnership agreement pursuant to which they
of facts established a company. By virtue of the terms of the articles of association of the
company, all decisions taken at the general meeting required the attendance of all
partners. The partnership had agreed to appoint a named person as the authorized
manager of the company, who was not to be dismissed without the unanimous
consent of the partners. When the Petitioner withdrew from the company, his shares
Table of contents
passed to both the First and Second Respondents, who then became the owners.
Four years later, both the First and Second Respondents held a meeting under the
guise of “calling the general meeting”. The Petitioner was not summoned to that
meeting, during which the decision to dismiss the authorized manager of the
company and appoint the Second Respondent as the general manager and chairman
of the company was made.
The Petitioner instituted an action before the Dubai Civil Court of First Instance
against the First and Second Respondents requesting several orders. In summary, the
Petitioner sought the appointment of a receiver for the company and an order setting
aside the decision to appoint the Second Respondent as general manager and
chairman of the company.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action because of the existence of an
arbitration clause. This decision was appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the
decision of the Court of First Instance. The Petitioner filed the present petition to
cassation.
Held The judgment of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
The motion to impose receivership on the company and to set aside the decision
Index
appointing the general manager is beyond the scope of the arbitration clause because
it is interim in nature and therefore can be heard by the courts.
Judgment The arbitration agreement contained in the articles of association of the company
provided that in the event that any disputes or disagreement should arise in respect
of the interpretation, management, performance or application of the company’s
memorandum of association, the dispute shall be first referred to arbitration. This
means that arbitration is a possible approach in connection with the substantive
disputes pertinent to the interpretation, management, performance or application of
the company’s memorandum of association. However, this does not prejudice the
right of the parties to resort to a summary court to avert a present or imminent risk
through the taking of interim proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s decision is overturned and the case is transmitted
to the summary courts pursuant to Articles 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Dubai Court of Cassation

Petition No. 175 of 1993 issued on 12 December 1993
Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – Jurisdiction
Summary The Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent before the Dubai Court of
of facts First Instance in which the Petitioner requested the appointment of arbitrators
pursuant to Article 23 of a charter-party executed between them. The Petitioner also
sought the enforcement of an arbitral award and further requested the Court of First
Instance to confirm a provisional attachment (over certain cheques issued by the
Petitioner in the Respondent’s favour) that had been previously granted.
Index
The basis of the Petitioner’s claim was that on 6 July 1992, the Petitioner had validly
terminated the charter-party due to the Respondent having breached certain
obligations relating to payment and the failure to return security cheques issued by
the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent.
The charter-party executed between the parties contained an arbitration agreement

providing for the determination of disputes by arbitration “in London or anywhere else
to be agreed”.
Arguing (i) that the parties failed to agree on the place for the arbitration (or indeed
the identity of the arbitrators); (ii) that the Dubai Courts had original jurisdiction to
hear the dispute because the Respondent was domiciled in Dubai; and (iii) that the
subject matter of the provisional attachment was within the jurisdiction of the Dubai
Courts, the Petitioner filed the action (for the appointment of arbitrators) before the
Dubai Court of First Instance.
Table of contents
The Court of First Instance determined that it did have jurisdiction to appoint the
arbitrators. The Court of First Instance further appointed three arbitrators and ordered
them to complete their mandate within three months. The Petitioner’s additional
requests for relief, being the enforcement of the ultimate award and the confirmation
of the provisional attachment, were held over until the completion of the arbitration.
The Respondent appealed the Court of First Instance’s judgment. The Court of Appeal
accepted the appeal as to form and dismissed the challenged judgment.
The Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.

Held The Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed.
Pursuant to Article 204 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code, “[i]f a dispute arises and the
litigants fail to agree on the arbitrators, the court originally having competent
jurisdiction to try the dispute shall appoint the arbitrators required upon the request
of either litigant”, even if the agreement to the arbitration is made in a foreign state.
Judgment The Petitioner based its arguments on the following facts: firstly, that the cheques
constituting the value of freight were withdrawn at the Dubai branch of a bank and,
secondly, that the Dubai-based branch of the Respondent in Dubai had received cash
amounts and cheques from the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that this implied that
the charter-party had been executed in Dubai, which, in turn, meant that the Dubai
Courts had jurisdiction to try the action.

The Court of Cassation agreed, holding that the decision of the Court of First Instance
dealing with the Petitioner’s request to appoint arbitrators was changed for the entire
litigation and because the Petitioner did not limit its request for relief to the
appointment of arbitrators but also sought the enforcement of the ultimate award
and confirmation of the provisional attachment (all three requests being attributable
to the charter-party).
The Court of Cassation noted that the judgment issued by the Court of First Instance
only addressed the first prayer for relief, being the appointment of arbitrators. In this
regard, the Court of Cassation relied on Article 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which
provides: “The judgments delivered in the course of the Action, by which the litigation
Table of contents
is not terminated unless the judgment terminating the whole litigation is delivered,
may not be challenged, save the interim and summary judgments, those delivered to
suspend the Action, judgments of obligatory execution, judgments delivered on the
lack of jurisdiction as well as the judgments of jurisdiction, if the court has no
dominion to judge in the Action.”
The Court of Cassation explained that judgments delivered in the course of a litigation
by which the litigation as a whole is not finally resolved (i.e., judgments dealing with
part of a claimant’s request for relief) may not be challenged. The exception to this is
judgments that relate to a determination of jurisdiction in circumstances where the
court confirming its jurisdiction to hear the action actually has no power to hear the
dispute. If such a condition is not satisfied, challenging the judgment is not permitted.
The next step is to determine whether the court delivering a first instance judgment
dismissing a plea of jurisdiction has the requisite power to adjudicate it or not.
Following an examination of the charter-party, the Court of Cassation found that, in

performance of its obligations, the Petitioner had issued cheques in favour of the
Respondent every fifteen days for the duration of the charter-party. These cheques
had been cashed at the Dubai branch of a certain bank. The Court of Cassation found
that the provisional attachment order had been issued in relation to a percentage of
these cheques. The result of this analysis was that the action filed by the Petitioner
Index
was connected to an obligation performed within the jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts.
This meant that the Dubai Court was originally competent to hear the dispute in the
event that the parties to the dispute were not able to agree to the arbitration clause.
The Court of Cassation further referred to Article 204.1 of the Civil Procedure Code
and held that this provision was applicable even if the agreement to arbitrate was
made in a foreign state.
It was explained that the challenged judgment was founded on the premise that the
Dubai Courts had no jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrators because the Courts of
London would enjoy this jurisdiction (the plea appears to have been that both parties
had agreed in the charter-party that the Courts of London would have jurisdiction to
settle disputes arising out of it). The Court of Cassation determined that such a plea
had no grounds because the parties had agreed to arbitration in London (but not to
the appointment of the arbitrators), not to litigation in London. The Court of Cassation
held that this implied that the Dubai Courts had jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrators.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed.


Petition No. 167 of 1994 issued on 13 November 1994
Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators
Summary The Petitioner, in an action brought against the Respondent, requested that the Dubai
of facts Court of First Instance appoint an arbitrator to determine, under the supervision of
the Court, a dispute that had arisen between the parties. The arbitration agreement
entered into by the parties provided for the name of the arbitrator to settle any
dispute between them. The dispute related to the Petitioner’s claim of AED 237,248
against the Respondent. The Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner’s action.
Index
The Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the judgment of the
Court of First Instance. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.
The Respondent challenged the petition on the basis that the judgment of the Court
of First Instance (which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal) was
“unchallengeable”. The Respondent relied upon Article 204.2 of the UAE Civil
Procedure Code, arguing that the application of this provision was not limited to
judgments dealing only with the appointment of arbitrators.
Held The petition to cassation was dismissed.
The effect of Article 204 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code is that unless the arbitrator
initially agreed to by the parties abstains from working, resigns, is dismissed, is judged
to be dismissed or is otherwise prevented from working, it is not possible to challenge
the Court’s decision as regards the identity of the arbitrators appointed by it. This is
an exception to the general rule that judgments can be appealed. The exception does
Table of contents
not extend to judgments that dismiss a request to appoint an arbitrator.

Judgment The Petitioner argued that the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, in which
the Court of First Instance’s judgment was upheld, was an order rejecting the request
that an arbitrator be appointed to settle the dispute between the two parties. Hence,
it was capable of being challenged before the Court of Cassation. The Petitioner
argued that there was no dispute that the parties were bound by an arbitration
agreement and that the Petitioner used its best endeavours to conduct the arbitration.
The Petitioner noted that the Respondent had directly refused to respond to the
request for arbitration. The Petitioner also argued that the Respondent suggested that
the Petitioner had not complied with the preconditions to arbitration in the arbitration
agreement, which required the dispute to be presented first to an engineer.
The Petitioner further argued that the Court, having determined not to appoint
an arbitrator, had given up the power vested in it under Article 204 of the Civil
Procedure Code.

The Court of Cassation held that these arguments were incorrect. Whenever parties
agree to refer to arbitration disputes that arise between them and appoint an
arbitrator, the arbitration clause should be enforced and the dispute should be
referred to the arbitrator selected by the parties. Neither party to the dispute may
have recourse to the court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a different arbitrator,
unless the arbitrator initially agreed to by the parties abstains from working, resigns, is
dismissed, is judged to be dismissed or is otherwise prevented from working. The
Court of Cassation explained that the burden of proof of establishing the existence of
a circumstance falling within Article 204 lies with the Petitioner, because it was the
Petitioner who was seeking the appointment of a different arbitrator. It is established
in the decisions of this Court that interpretation of facts and evaluation of evidence in
Table of contents
order to assess the truth is within the jurisdiction of the court of merits and may not
be assessed by the Court of Cassation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, was premised on the fact that the Petitioner submitted with its appeal
supporting documents that included a message sent to the Respondent in respect of
the arbitration proceedings together with a reply from the Respondent in which the
Respondent alleged that the request for arbitration should be nullified. The supporting
documents also included a photocopy of the message sent to the agreed arbitrator.
The Court of Cassation held that the supporting documents described above were
not sufficient to prove that the Respondent had chosen not to participate in the
arbitration.
Accordingly, the present petition to cassation was dismissed.
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Competence of arbitrators –

Indivisibility of award – Pending litigation – Taking the oath – Validity of arbitration
proceedings
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent had a dispute over property in Jordan and were
of facts litigating their dispute in court. While the litigation was pending, the parties executed
an agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator. The
arbitrator issued an award on 15 November 1993 directing the Petitioner (1) to register
Index
the subject property in the name of the Respondent’s representative and (2) to pay
damages to the Respondent.
The Respondent petitioned the Court of First Instance to ratify the arbitral award. The
Petitioner resisted ratification of the award, and the Court nullified the first element of
the award while ratifying the second element. The Petitioner appealed the decision
ratifying the second element, and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The
Petitioner then lodged a petition to cassation with the Court of Cassation. The
Petitioner argued:
1. The arbitral award was contrary to law because:
the arbitration agreement was invalid as it involved a matter that was also the
subject of pending litigation;
the arbitrator became incompetent after the Petitioner refused to make a payment
demanded by the arbitrator; and
Table of contents
the arbitrator administered an irregular oath to the Respondent’s representative at

an arbitral hearing that the Petitioner did not attend.
2. The trial court’s judgment was defective because the court failed to address the
Petitioner’s argument that the arbitral award was indivisible. As such, if an element
of the award was adjudged invalid for going beyond the scope of the arbitration
agreement, then the entire award is null.
Held The appealed judgment was overturned.
An existing lawsuit between litigants considered before courts does not legally
prevent those litigants from agreeing to enter into arbitration to resolve the same
disputed subject matter of that lawsuit as long as the court has not passed a
judgment preventing such a referral.
Petitions to recuse an arbitrator who has become incompetent must be made in

compliance with Article 207.4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Failure by a party to
comply with Article 207.4 is regarded as a waiver of the party’s right to rely on the
alleged incompetence as grounds for nullifying an arbitral award.
Arbitrators are not bound to follow court procedures. They are bound to observe the
procedures applicable to arbitration, assure the rights of defence and of equal
treatment and follow any procedures agreed to by the parties.
Whether to nullify an entire arbitral award because part of the award is beyond the
scope of the arbitration agreement is a question of fact that should be considered by
the trial court.

Judgment The petition to cassation was based on two grounds.
In the first item of the first ground, the Petitioner argued that the judgment of the
Court of First Instance approved the ratification of the arbitration award despite its
invalidity for being rendered pursuant to an invalid arbitration agreement, as the
parties agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration while the dispute was already
submitted before the courts.
This argument was rejected. An existing lawsuit between litigants considered before
the courts does not legally prevent those litigants from agreeing to enter into
arbitration to resolve the same disputed subject matter of that lawsuit, as long as the
court has not passed any judgment preventing the referral of the same dispute before
Table of contents
another entity authorized to adjudicate upon it. Hence, the litigants’ agreement
beyond the court’s intervention to refer the dispute to arbitration while the same
dispute was being considered before a court of law was legally valid in principle.
In the second item of the first ground, the Petitioner argued that the challenged
judgment involved a contradiction with the law, as it ignored the Petitioner’s argument
regarding the invalidity of the arbitration award. This argument was based on the fact
that the arbitrator was incompetent to adjudicate the dispute due to bias, because the
Petitioner refused to pay certain fees demanded by the arbitrator. To deny this
argument, the judgment relied on the non-compliance of the Petitioner with the legal
procedures stipulated in Article 207.4 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to recusal
procedures.
This argument was also rejected. The incompetence of the arbitrator to adjudicate the
dispute is among the grounds enumerated in Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code
allowing the involved litigants to request the invalidity of the arbitration award.
However, Article 207.4 of the Code stipulates that the arbitrator may not be recused
except for reasons occurring or appearing after the appointment of the arbitrator and
when recusal, in this case, is requested for the same reasons for which a judge is
recused or considered incompetent for delivering a judgment. The recusal request
Index
shall be raised before the court originally having jurisdiction to examine the lawsuit
within five days from the date of notifying the litigant of the appointment of the
arbitrator or the date on which the recusal reason emerged or became known
following notification of the appointment of the arbitrator. This shows that the
lawmaker has fixed a limited period of time within which the litigant can submit a
request for the arbitrator’s recusal or to consider whether the arbitrator is
incompetent to examine the litigation. Hence, the condition of adhering to the
incompetence of the arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute as a reason for requesting
invalidation of that arbitrator’s award is that the party making this claim must adhere
to the legal process for the recusal of the arbitrator within the stipulated period of
time. As the challenged judgment dismissed the Petitioner’s plea in this regard in
accordance with the above, the argument made against this judgment shall be
inadmissible.
In the first and second items of the second ground, the Petitioner argued that the
challenged judgment provided an insufficient reply to the Petitioner’s argument that
the oath taken by the Respondent’s representative in the arbitration was invalid
because it was administered in the absence of the Petitioner and based on an
amended wording.
According to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code and what is established in the
adjudication of this Court, the arbitrator is not initially required to follow the
procedures applicable to lawsuits filed before courts of law. However, arbitrators are
required to observe the procedures stipulated under the arbitration chapter of the
Civil Procedure Code as well as any other procedures agreed upon between the

parties. Additionally, the arbitrator shall observe the right to defence (i.e., allowing
each party to submit its petitions and pleas to prove its claims and deny the claims of
the other party). Arbitrators shall also follow the necessary procedures vis-à-vis the
disputing parties, such as notifying them of the date of the session for determining
evidentiary procedures. It is also legally established that the trial judge may amend the
wording of the oath upon an objection from a litigant or at his own discretion without
referring the amended wording to the official administering the oath, as long as the
amendment is limited to a clarification of the wording of the oath and the facts about
which the oath is to be taken without any alteration of the subject of the oath. The
person who is required to comply with the evidentiary procedures, including the oath,
must be a party to the dispute. The oath is only required to be taken by the litigants in
Index
the action. In cases where a litigant is a juridical person, the oath shall be administered
to the litigant’s legal representative. According to Clause 6 of the arbitration
document, both parties have agreed that “an arbitrator shall determine the
procedures to be followed in pleadings, submission of evidence, documents and
memorandums, and both parties have agreed to execute whatever the arbitrator
requires them to do…”. The challenged judgment established that the Petitioner was
aware of the date of the session scheduled for administering the oath. Hence, the
arbitrator shall be deemed to have observed the basic principles of litigation with
respect to the summons of the disputing parties. It is established from the arbitration
file that the award included the Petitioner’s acceptance of administering the oath to
[ _______ ] alone, in his capacity as a partner and general manager of the
Respondent’s company, after amending the wording of the oath as mentioned in the
case papers. Hence, the argument made against the challenged judgment as
mentioned above was rejected.
Table of contents
In the third item of the second ground, the Petitioner argued that the trial court’s
determination that the first part of the award was invalid, as it was beyond the scope
of the arbitration agreement, necessitates the invalidation of the entire award.
The above argument was accepted. It is established that nullification of a part of the
award for being beyond the limits defined in the arbitration document inevitably
entails the nullity of the remainder of the award, because both parts of the award are
indivisibly related. It is also established that whether there is an indivisible connection
between the parts of the award is a matter of fact subject to the discretionary
determination of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal did not address this
argument and must therefore treat it as an essential plea that could have changed the
course of litigation. Hence, the challenged judgment shall be deemed to have involved
a defective causation in this respect and shall be overturned with no need to
investigate other aspects of the petition to cassation.
Accordingly, the challenged judgment was overturned.

Petition No. 9 of 1996 issued on 13 July 1996

Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent were engaged in arbitration. The time for the
of facts issuance of the arbitral award expired on 15 March 1993 without the award having
been issued. On 25 March 1993, the Respondent filed a memorandum with the
arbitrator objecting to the continuance of the arbitration proceedings on the ground
that the time for issuance of the award had expired. The arbitrator then petitioned the
Court of First Instance for an extension of the time period to render the award, which
Table of contents
was granted over the objection of the Respondent. The Respondent then participated
in the continuing arbitral process and the arbitrator issued his award in favour of the
Petitioner on 27 July 1993. The Petitioner sought ratification of the award, and the
Respondent cross-claimed for annulment on the ground, inter alia, that the award was
invalid for having been issued after the expiration of the time limit for the award. The
lower courts ratified the award. The case then went up to the Court of Cassation on
different grounds, was remanded and then came back up again before the Court of
Cassation.
Held The award was annulled.
Pursuant to Article 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, the period for the issuance of the
award may be extended by the parties, the arbitrator or the courts, provided that the
extended duration is uninterruptedly linked to the previously set period, otherwise
such extension will not be effective. The extension of the period to render an award
cannot occur after the expiry of the previously set period.
Judgment Although the arbitration period set in the arbitration agreement was extended more
than once by agreement of both parties in some instances and by a decision of the
court in other instances, ended on 15 May 1993. The papers of the case provide no
evidence of its extension, whether by implicit or explicit agreement of both parties or
Index
by a decision rendered by the court, from 15 May 1993 to 25 May 1993, which is the
date on which the Respondent expressly contested the validity of the arbitration for
being out of time before the arbitrator. Such claim was presented at its proper time
and the validity thereof was verified and cannot be dismissed on the ground that the
Respondent tackled the subject matter of the dispute in the same memorandum in
which they maintained the said claim for annulment, as this was done by way of
precaution.
Thus, the said claim shall be sustained, the effect of which shall be the annulment of
the arbitration agreement owing to lapse of time. This fact is not affected by the
decision of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 1993 extending the time to issue the
award by an additional three months from the date of the decision, on the basis that it
was rendered by agreement of both parties. The reality recorded in the minutes of the
Court’s hearing on whether or not the period decided by the Court is uninterruptedly
linked to the previous period is that the Petitioner's attorney objected – before the
Court – to the arbitrator’s extension request and that such extension was granted
after the expiry of the previous arbitration period on 15 May 1993. Therefore, the
Court’s decision for further extension has no effect on the expired period of
arbitration.
The arbitrator issued his award on 27 July 1993, which was beyond the predetermined
period of the arbitration ending on 15 March 1993. Hence, the given award is null and
void in application of the content of Article 216.1 of the Civil Procedure Code.


Petition No. 178 of 1996 issued on 25 January 1997
Headnote Arbitration – Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary The Respondent successfully petitioned the Court of First Instance to appoint an
of facts arbitrator to resolve disputes between the Respondent and the two Petitioners, all of
whom were parties to a commercial contract. The Court appointed the arbitrator on
13 February 1993. Arbitration proceedings commenced and continued until 5 October
1995, when the arbitrator rendered an award in favour of the Respondent against both
Petitioners. The Respondent sought ratification of the award and the Court of First
Index
Instance ratified the award on 25 November 1995. The Petitioners appealed, but the
Court of Appeal upheld the ratification on 17 April 1996.
The Petitioners raised a petition to cassation. The petition was based on three
grounds, two of which were entirely fact-based (involving questions of the
genuineness of the arbitration agreement and the authority of the signatories to the
agreement) and were readily dismissed without notable legal analysis.
The third ground for the petition was that the arbitration award was invalid for having
been issued after the expiry of the time limit for issuance of arbitral awards found in
Article 210.1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The fact that the Petitioners had dealt with the arbitrator throughout a period
exceeding two years as from the date of the first session indicates that the latter
implicitly agreed to extend the first six-month period specified under Article 210 of
Table of contents
the Civil Procedure Code.

Judgment It was evidently established from the challenged judgment that the Petitioners had
dealt with the arbitrator for more than two years as from the date of the first session.
This indicates that the latter implicitly agreed to extend the first six-month period set
for the award to be issued by the arbitrator under Article 210 of the Civil Procedure
Code. In cases where the litigants do not agree on a specific date for such an
extension, their consent as to the said extension shall be deemed an agreement to
resume the arbitration with no definite date set. The period for issuing the award may
be repeatedly extended for an additional six-month period until one of the litigants
refuses any further renewal or turns to the courts to settle the action upon the expiry
of the previous set period of arbitration.
Accordingly, the present petition to cassation is dismissed.


Headnote Arbitration – Waiver of right to appeal
Summary An action was brought by the Respondents before the Dubai Court of First Instance,
of facts requesting the enforcement of an arbitration award rendered on 3 October 1992,
which bound the First Petitioner to a payment of AED 2,435,458.
The Petitioners brought an action requesting the nullification of the arbitration award.
The Petitioners argued that the arbitration award was null and void, since the First
Petitioner appeared only in a personal capacity and the Second Petitioner, a company
Table of contents
with separate legal personality that was the subject of the dispute, had not appeared
in the proceedings at all. The Court rejected the request for nullification, and its
judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal and became final after the Court of
Cassation rejected the petition to cassation.
Thereafter, the Respondents requested the ratification of the award, which the Court
accepted. The Petitioners brought a case on 13 November 1995 against the
Respondents’ request for ratification, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioners
filed an appeal against the judgment, which was also dismissed. The Petitioners then
filed a petition to cassation requesting the judgment of the Court of Appeal to be
reversed on the grounds that an arbitral decision is final where the parties have
agreed that the arbitrators’ decision will be final in the arbitration agreement and the
award falls within the scope of the arbitrators’ powers. The Respondents submitted
their defence, but it was put aside as it was delivered after the set timeframe under
the law.
Held The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed.
Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that arbitration awards are not
subject to any means of appeal and are binding. However, a judgment ratifying or
nullifying an arbitration award properly made by an authorized arbitrator may be
Index
appealed, save when the parties have expressly waived the right to appeal or if the
amount of the dispute does not exceed AED 10,000.
Judgment The Petitioners argue that the challenged judgment constitutes a violation and
misapplication of the law and a deficiency in reasoning, since the Court of Appeal
based its judgment on the idea that the judgment of the Court of First Instance that
endorsed the arbitration award is not appealable as long as the parties agreed in the
arbitration deed that the arbitrator’s decision is final and not appealable and as long
as the award issued by the arbitrator is within the scope of the duties assigned by the
arbitration deed.
Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that arbitration awards are not
subject to any means of appeal and are binding. However, a judgment ratifying or
nullifying an arbitration award properly made by an authorized arbitrator may be
appealed, save when the parties have expressly waived the right to appeal or if the
amount of the dispute does not exceed AED 10,000.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal failed to verify whether the parties agreed to waive
their right to appeal a decision nullifying or ratifying an award. A mere agreement
mentioned in arbitration deed or arbitration agreement upon authorizing an arbitrator
for reconciliation shall not be adequate for considering the award rendered thereby as
a final award without being restricted by the pleading procedures.

The waiver of the right to appeal mentioned in Article 217.3 – by which the appeal shall
be dismissed – shall mean the explicit waiver of the right to appeal a judgment
ratifying or annulling an arbitration award and not the waiver of the right to appeal
the arbitration award itself, as the arbitration award shall not be subject to any means
of appeal.
The Court of Appeal should have reviewed the challenges to the representation and
capacity of the Respondents. The challenged judgment constituted a violation of the
law and is reversed, without the need to consider the remaining grounds of the
challenge.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
Index
Table of contents

Petition No. 537 of 1999 issued on 23 April 2000

Headnote Arbitration – Assignment of arbitration agreement – Capacity to agree to arbitration

– Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary The Petitioner, the owner and manager of a construction company, contracted with
of facts the Respondent to perform certain construction works for the Respondent. The
Petitioner entered into the contract in a personal capacity, either as an individual or in
the (legally indistinguishable) capacity of the owner of a sole proprietorship. The
contract into which the Petitioner entered contained an arbitration clause stipulating
Table of contents
that any dispute pertaining to the contract should be arbitrated. Subsequently, the
Petitioner formed Al-Nekhreh Contracting Company (“Al-Nekhreh”), a limited liability
company of which he became the general manager. The construction contract was
assigned to Al-Nekhreh.
A dispute arose, which was referred to arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators.
After the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, the Respondent and the
Petitioner, in his capacity as general manager of Al-Nekhreh, signed the terms of
reference affirming the arbitration agreement in the contract. Following the issuance
of two arbitral awards – one determining the substance of the dispute and the other
determining the arbitration fees – the Petitioner filed an action with the Court of First
Instance seeking the nullity of the awards. The Court dismissed the action and the
Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, and the
Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.
The parties to an arbitration agreement may, explicitly or implicitly, agree to extend

the time for the issuance of an arbitral award. The extension period for the issuance of
an arbitral award shall immediately follow the extended term without interruption.
Furthermore, the time for issuance of the arbitral award is not an issue relating to
Index
public order, and the court may thus not raise it on its own motion. Rather, the
disputing party must expressly and clearly raise the claim before the arbitrator or
before the court considering the ratification or nullification of the claim.
Articles 237 and 235 of the Companies Law confer upon the manager of a limited
liability company the full capacity to manage the company, including the capacity to
agree to arbitration on its behalf without the need for a special authorization. Article
28.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that “acknowledging or assigning
the claimed right, reconciliation or arbitration shall not be allowed save by a special
proxy”, is only restricted to a litigation representative before courts of law and does
not extend to the powers given to the manager of the limited liability company over
administration and the capacity to agree to arbitration.
If a contracting party assigns rights and obligations to a third party by assignment

accepted by the third party, the latter shall replace the contracting party in abiding by
the arbitration agreement. Such assignment may be explicitly or implicitly accepted
through any act performed or measures taken by the third party.
In disputes settled by arbitration, it is not necessary for the litigant to appear

personally before the arbitrators. They may unconditionally choose their
representatives, who are attorneys at law delegated by an official proxy. This proxy
may be explicit or implicit and may be determined by the court that is hearing the
subject matter.

There are no provisions that prohibit arbitrators from issuing an award determining
their fees and arbitration expenses after the award settling the dispute has been
issued, because they still have jurisdiction over arbitration issues concerning fees
and expenses.
Judgment The Court of Cassation considered the following arguments presented by the
Petitioner:
1. The arbitral awards are invalid for having been issued beyond the agreed time
frame for the arbitration.
2. The arbitral awards are invalid because the Petitioner, as general manager of
Al-Nekhreh, lacked the specific capacity to agree to arbitration on behalf of
Index
Al-Nekhreh.
3. The terms of reference are invalid because they do not set out the subject of the
arbitration other than through reference to the parties arbitral pleadings, which is
insufficient where the arbitration is conducted independently of a court
proceeding.
4. The arbitral awards are invalid because they are issued against Al-Nekhreh rather
than against the Petitioner, who signed the arbitration agreement as manager of
Al-Nekhreh but without specific capacity to agree to arbitration.
5. The arbitral awards are invalid because neither the Petitioner nor any other
representative of Al-Nekhreh appeared before the arbitral tribunal.
6. The second arbitral award is invalid because it was delivered after the time for the
arbitration had lapsed without any connection to the first award.
7. The arbitral awards are invalid because the arbitrators decided some technical
Table of contents
matters based on personal knowledge rather than evidence.

8. The arbitral awards are invalid because of extra fees awarded to one of the
arbitrators.
9. The arbitral awards are invalid because they awarded a delay fine to an entity not a
party to the arbitration.
10. The arbitral awards are invalid because the investigation was undertaken solely by
one arbitrator in contravention of Article 208.3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Court’s findings are as follows:
The first argument is inadmissible. The appealed judgment found that “it was
established by Clause VI of the arbitration document that the litigants granted the
arbitrators the right to extend the arbitration term when the necessity arises. As
established by the minutes of the arbitration hearing dated 7 June 1997, arbitrators, by
virtue of this right, extended the arbitration term [for] six months commencing
immediately after the termination of the previous term and the award was made
during the extension period.” These admissible reasons are established by documents
and have the same meaning contained in Clause VI of the terms of reference dated 16
February 1997, which stipulates that arbitrators are previously delegated to extend the
agreed-upon term of arbitration with no need to obtain the agreement of the litigants
or their representative before the Court.
The second claim is without evidence, either de jure or de facto. The terms of
reference concluded between the parties on 16 February 1997, which are themselves a
confirmation of the arbitration agreement set forth in the construction contract and
were signed by a representative of the limited liability company, are valid since they
were issued by a person who has the capacity to represent the said company. The
manager, who represents and administers the company, has the capacity to dispose
of all items related to this representation and any matters consequent thereto,

including the capacity to agree to arbitration. It is established that no text in the

company’s memorandum of association limits the powers given to the manager to
agree to arbitration. His agreement on the subject matter of the arbitration is related
to the activity of the said company and to the dispute ensuing from the
implementation of the construction contract in which the said company engaged as a
contractor. Thus, he has the capacity to agree to arbitration. It is established that the
Plaintiff – the Petitioner – is the manager of the company, as acknowledged in the
statement of claim under the title of “the capacity according to which the case is
filed” and as established by the company’s memorandum of association.
The third argument is inadmissible because the relevant arbitration agreement was
Table of contents
that contained in the underlying contract, which set forth the subject matter of the
dispute, not that entered into subsequent to the commencement of the arbitral
proceedings which does not constitute a new arbitration agreement but rather a
confirmation of an existing arbitration.
The fourth argument is groundless because the arbitration agreement was transferred
to Al-Nekhreh, which was party to the arbitration.
The fifth argument is inadmissible. The appealed judgment found: “It is established by
the minutes of arbitration that the arbitration panel allowed the Plaintiff to make pleas
and submit documents by the representatives. Their appearance as representatives of
the Plaintiff company in the arbitration hearings is established by the proxy document
dated 28 January 1997 and imprinted on the official papers of the company. … The
Plaintiff directly acknowledged in the arbitration document … that matters agreed to
be considered by arbitrators are detailed in the litigant’s statement of claim submitted
at the first hearing attended by […] who presented the petitions of the Plaintiff’s
company. This act is considered an implicit acknowledgment made by the Plaintiff of
the validity of this person’s representation of the company at the hearing.”
The sixth argument is rebutted as follows. There are no legal provisions that prohibit
arbitrators from issuing an award determining their fees and arbitration expenses after
Index
the award settling the dispute has been issued, because they still have jurisdiction
over arbitration issues concerning fees and expenses and because such an award is
not related to the subject matter of the dispute after the award settling that dispute
has been issued.
The seventh part of the argument is refuted as follows. The engineers were chosen by
the parties to be arbitrators because of their experience in the field of construction,
which was the subject matter of the arbitration. Therefore, if they used their
experience and personal knowledge of market conditions, they did not err. Although
arbitrators are considered to be judges, they are allowed – unlike judges – to
adjudicate using their personal knowledge on general matters.
The eighth part of this argument is inadmissible because the objection made by the
Petitioner regarding the determination of higher fees for one of the arbitrators does
not fall under the grounds for cancelling the award issued by arbitrators set forth in
Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Petitioner’s objection actually relates to
the discretionary powers exercised by arbitrators and does not constitute a valid
reason for cancelling the award.
The ninth part of this argument is inadmissible because the sum referred to in the
award is not payable to the consultant but corresponds to a fine for delay payable to
the Respondent for the appointment of the consultant.

The tenth part of the argument is inadmissible. Pursuant to Article 208.3 of the Civil
Procedure Code, in cases involving more than one arbitrator, they shall jointly carry
out investigations and each of them shall sign the minutes. This provision is a
procedural rule relating to the methods of obtaining evidence. In contradiction of this
rule, if one arbitrator carries out some investigations alone, he is implicitly
commissioned by the panel of which he is a member. Furthermore, if he allows
litigants equal opportunity to make their pleas, such an act does not invalidate the
award, since the outcome of the investigations is subject to the consideration of all
arbitrators when resolving the subject matter of the dispute. No allegation was made
by the Petitioner that the arbitrator who carried out some investigations on his own
prohibited the Petitioner from making pleas or submitting evidence.
Index
The Petitioner argues that the arbitrators failed to decide on its claim for legal interest.
All grounds submitted by the parties to challenge the award other than those set
forth in Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code, relating to the discretionary powers
exercised by arbitrators and the invalidity or insufficiency of their reasons, are
inadmissible. If the award made by arbitrators neglects a subject matter petition, such
negligence does not invalidate this award. If the court that is hearing the subject
matter does not consider a subject matter petition, as in the case of the above-
mentioned Court, this act is an inadmissible reason for challenging the resulting
judgment.

Table of contents

Petition No. 88 of 2001 issued on 29 April 2001 – Civil

Petition No. 88 of 2001 issued on 29 April 2001 – Civil
Headnote Arbitration – Content of award
Summary The Petitioner filed an action against the Respondents before the Dubai Court of First
of facts Instance, requesting the Court to confirm the invalidity of two agreements dated 14
August 1995 and 2 October 1995 and to order the Respondents to refund the amount
of AED 1,785,048 in addition to legal interest. Additionally, the Petitioner requested the
Court to appoint three arbitrators to settle the dispute.
On 29 July 1998, the Court decided to appoint three accounting experts to act as
Table of contents
arbitrators in the dispute arising between the Petitioner and the First and Second
Respondents regarding the agreement dated 14 August 1995.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the invalidation request presented with respect to
the agreement dated 14 August 1995 on the grounds that the agreement provided for
arbitration in case of disputes between the parties under the agreement.
After the arbitrators issued their award, the Petitioner requested the Court of First
Instance to ratify the award whereas the first Respondent objected to this request.
On 28 September 1999, the Court of First Instance decided to ratify the arbitration
award only against the second Respondent and ordered said Respondent to refund to
the Claimant Petitioner the amount of AED 968,656 in addition to legal interest.
However, this judgment was appealed by the Respondents, who requested the Court
to annul the interlocutory judgment and the award.
On 27 February 2000, the Court of Appeal decided to annul the award. The Petitioner
challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
On 24 September 2000, the Court of Cassation decided to overturn the challenged

judgment, on the basis that the presence of the signatures of all arbitrators on the
Index
arbitration minutes is not a prerequisite for the validity of the award, and remanded
the case to the lower courts. On 18 February 2001, the Court to which the case was
referred annulled the appealed judgment. Once again, the Petitioner filed a petition to
cassation.
Held The judgment was overturned and the case remanded to the lower courts.
According to paragraphs (1) and (5) of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as
established in the adjudication of this Court, the lawmaker did not stipulate that the
award should include all data that must be included in court rulings. Rather, the
lawmaker has stipulated that provisions related to arbitration and mentioned in
Chapter 3 of the Civil Procedure Code must be fulfilled, including the above-
mentioned paragraph (5) of Article 212. According to this article, the award must
include a copy of the arbitration agreement. The basic purpose of this condition is to
verify that the award is given within the limits of the arbitrators’ competence and
authority extracted from the arbitration agreement. The award shall include a copy of
this agreement, even if a copy of the agreement or the original thereof is to be
submitted to the Court during the consideration of the dispute. It is not necessary to
mention the exact provisions of the arbitration agreement: the purport thereof shall
be sufficient so long as no alteration is made to its meaning.

Judgment It is established from the award, which forms the subject matter of the present
dispute, that it included a summary of the clauses of the agreement dated 14 August
1995, as well as the arbitration clause referred to therein. Hence, the award is deemed
to have fulfilled the condition contemplated under Article 212 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
As the challenged judgment was passed in contradiction of the above and concluded
that the said award did not include a copy of the arbitration agreement, it is invalid.
Said judgment shall therefore be deemed to have been passed in contradiction to the
facts established by case papers and shall be overturned. As the result reached by the
challenged judgment precluded verification that the said award was passed within the
Index
limits of the authority conferred upon the arbitrators by the arbitration agreement, the
Court, in addition to overturning the challenged judgment, as mentioned above,
decides to remand the case to the lower courts to reconsider the issue, with no need
to investigate other grounds of the present petition to cassation.
Accordingly, the judgment is overturned and the case is remanded to the lower courts.
Table of contents

Petition No. 167 of 2002 issued on 2 June 2002

Headnote Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Scope of arbitration agreement
Summary The Petitioner filed a case against the Respondents before the Dubai Court of First
of facts Instance requesting an order that the Respondents jointly pay a sum of AED
850,738.45 plus interest. The Petitioner also sought an order that the case be
transferred to arbitration through the nomination of a specialist arbitrator.
The First Respondent, a contractor, entered into a construction subcontract to supply

and install mechanical, electrical and sanitary devices with the Second Respondent
Table of contents
(the proprietor). The Petitioner claimed a sum of money for works that it had carried
out. The Respondents refused to pay and refused to nominate an arbitrator to settle
the corresponding dispute. It was on that basis that the Petitioner filed proceedings in
the Dubai Court of First Instance.
The Court of First Instance held that the action was inadmissible due to the existence
of an arbitration clause. It also assigned an engineering expert as an arbitrator and
tasked him to complete his mandate within six months. The Petitioner appealed the
judgment before the Court of Appeal on the basis that its principal pleas had been
ignored because of the arbitration agreement. The Petitioner also requested that the
case be remitted to the Court of First Instance and maintained there until an award
was issued by the arbitrators and ratified pursuant to Article 213.1 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner appealed to the Court of
Cassation.
If the litigants agree on settling a dispute by arbitration, a case concerning the

substance of the dispute may not be brought before the courts. If one of the litigants
Index
files a case with no objection made by the other litigant at the first hearing, the courts
may then consider the case and find the arbitration clause to be null and void.
However, if an objection (on the basis of the existence of an arbitration clause) is
raised by the other party at the first hearing, the courts shall find the case inadmissible
due to the existence of the arbitration agreement.
The following statement in Article 203.3 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to the
scope of the arbitration clause: “The litigation’s facts should be designated in the
arbitration document or during the examination of the action even if the arbitrators
were authorized for reconciliation, otherwise the arbitration shall be void.”
It is firmly established by the Court that, pursuant to Article 204.2 of the Civil
Procedure Code, judgments passed with respect to the nomination of an arbitrator
may not be challenged.
Judgment Pursuant to Article 203.5 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the litigants agree to settle a
dispute by arbitration, a case concerning the substance of the dispute may not be
brought before the courts. If one of the litigants files a case with no objection made
by the other litigant at the first hearing, the courts may then consider the case and
find the arbitration clause to be null and void. However, if an objection (on the basis of
the existence of an arbitration clause) is raised by the other party at the first hearing,
the courts shall find the case inadmissible due to the existence of the arbitration
agreement.

The following statement in Article 203.3 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to the
scope of the arbitration clause: “The litigation’s facts should be designated in the
arbitration document or during the examination of the action even if the arbitrators
were authorized for reconciliation, otherwise the arbitration shall be void” Clause 18 of
the contract entered into by the parties stipulated that disputes arising from the
contract should be settled by arbitration. It was held that the parties to the contract
had therefore agreed that arbitration shall include all disputes relating to the
implementation of the project. The Court held that the Petitioner’s claim that the
arbitration clause was not applicable because no dispute had arisen between the
parties with respect to the funds claimed by the Petitioner as well as the Petitioner’s
secondary claim that the arbitration agreement had been cancelled with the
Index
termination of the construction subcontract were therefore both incorrect and

groundless.
The Court of Cassation further held that, pursuant to Article 252 of the Civil
Transactions Law, a contract may not impose obligations on a third party but may
grant a third party a right. In this agreement, the term “a contracting party” shall mean
a party that expresses a will of obligation and participates in the formation thereof.
Naming parties in a contract or getting them to sign a contract in a capacity other
than a contracting party is insufficient for considering those parties to be relevant to
the contract.
Pursuant to Article 891 of the Civil Transactions Law, a subcontractor may not claim
dues to be payable by the proprietor (Second Respondent) unless they are assigned
to the proprietor. The determination of the proper parties to an arbitration agreement
is a matter for the court. It is established that the Petitioner has no relationship with
the Second Respondent unless admissible documents are provided proving that the
Table of contents
First Respondent has assigned tasks to the Second Respondent.
Interestingly, the Petitioner had also argued that the principle that it is not possible to
challenge the appointment of an arbitrator by the court was unreasonable. However, it
is firmly established that, pursuant to Article 204.2 of the Civil Procedure Code,
judgments passed with respect to the nomination of an arbitrator may not be
challenged.
In this case, the Court found that the Petitioner had requested the Court to determine
whether the Respondents were liable for funds because the arbitration agreement
had been “cancelled” by the termination of the contract. This argument was incorrect,
and the Court of First Instance therefore found for the Petitioner by appointing an
arbitrator. This appointment was not challengeable. In its appeal to the Court of
Cassation, the Petitioner argued that it had not demanded the transfer of the dispute
to arbitration. The Petitioner also contended that nothing in the law obliged the Court
to cease considering the dispute until a judgment is passed by an arbitrator.
The Court relied on Article 213.1 of the Civil Procedure Code:
“In case of the arbitration proceeded through the court, the arbitrators should deposit
the decision with the original of the arbitration record, the reports and the documents
in the clerk’s office of the court authorized principally to examine the action, and that
shall be within the fifteen days following the decision’s delivery and they should
deposit a copy of the decision in the clerk’s office of the court to deliver them to each
party side and that within fifteen days from depositing the original and the clerk’s
office of the court shall compile a report with that deposit to manifest it to the judge
or the division manager, according to the circumstances, in order to appoint a session
within fifteen days to authenticate the decision and the two parties shall be notified
therewith.”

The Court held that this provision indicated that the jurisdiction of the Court over
court-supervised arbitration should not be terminated by transferring the dispute to
arbitration. Such jurisdiction shall continue even after the arbitrators deposit the
award for ratification. Consequently, the Court that is hearing the subject matter
should not dispose of the case proceedings until the award issued by arbitrators is
deposited with the clerk of the Court.
Table of contents
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Jurisdiction
Summary The Petitioner asked the Court of First Instance to block the Rental Committee’s
of facts ratification of an arbitral award on the grounds that the Rental Committee did not
have the power to do so. The facts of the case are that the Respondent entered into
an agreement with the Petitioner for the lease of a racetrack in Dubai for a period of
one year for a monthly rent of AED 8,500. The Respondent terminated the agreement
six months after entering into the agreement. A dispute arose between the parties in
Index
relation to the total amount of rent outstanding. As per the provisions of the lease, the
dispute was referred to arbitration under the rules of the Dubai Chamber of Industry
and Commerce. An award was rendered by a sole arbitrator in favour of the
Respondent. The award was ratified by the Rental Committee. The Court of First
Instance held that the Rental Committee had jurisdiction over rental disputes and
therefore had the power to ratify arbitral awards concerning such disputes. The
Petitioner appealed the judgment, but the Court of Appeal ultimately endorsed the
Court of First Instance’s decision. The matter was referred to the Court of Cassation.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
Under Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court that has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a dispute shall be competent to ratify arbitral awards. Furthermore,
according to Article 1 of Decree No. 2 of 1993 establishing the Rental Committee (the
“Decree”), the Rental Committee has sole jurisdiction over “all kinds of disputes
between tenants and landlords”. It is in effect a judicial body separate from the courts,
Table of contents
and its rulings have the same enforceability as court judgments. Article 4 of the
Decree explicitly states that decisions of the Rental Committee cannot be set aside by
the courts. Therefore ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction over the ratification of
arbitration awards concerning rental disputes.
Judgment Article 1 of Decree No. 2 of 1993 establishing an ad hoc judicial committee to hear any
kind of dispute between tenants and landlords states that “an ad hoc juridical
committee, which is called the Rental Committee, shall be formed and shall have
solely jurisdiction over all kinds of disputes between tenants and landlords…”. Article 4
of Decree No. 2 provides that “the judgment passed by the Committee shall be final
and unchallengeable”. As confirmed by the Court, this provision indicates that the
Rental Committee is an administrative authority by virtue of its formation; however, it
was given certain judicial powers by the legislator to settle disputes between landlords
and tenants.
This Committee is thus deemed to be a judicial body that is completely independent

from the ordinary judicial authorities. Its decisions have the same enforceability as
judicial judgments and may not be challenged before ordinary courts, as explicitly
established by Article 4 of the Decree. Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code provides
that the court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute shall be
competent to ratify arbitration awards. In the present case, the dispute between the
litigants is grounded in the provisions regulating the rental relationship in accordance
with the rules set forth in the Civil Transactions Law. Therefore the Rental Committee
shall be solely competent to decide on such a dispute through judicial proceedings or
arbitration. It shall also have jurisdiction to ratify arbitration awards relating to rental
disputes.
Accordingly, the petition to cassation is dismissed.

Petition No. 403 of 2003 issued on 13 March 2004

Headnote Arbitration – Arbitration outside the court – Fees of the arbitrators – Grounds for
annulment of award – Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary A judgment was rendered to appoint arbitrators from the Court list of expert
of facts engineers to decide on a dispute between the Respondent and the First and Second
Petitioners on the contract between them dated 28 October 1994.
The arbitral tribunal issued an award on 22 September 2001. The award ordered the
First Petitioner to pay the sum of AED 1,074,356.86 plus interest of AED 395,726.92
Table of contents
until 23 September 2000 and fees and expenses of the arbitration of AED 118,750 plus
9% interest per annum amounting to AED 1,193,106.86 from 24 September 2000 until
it had paid the Respondent in full for having completed Building No. 309. The award
ordered that the Second Petitioner pay the remaining amount of AED 1,166,463.95
plus interest of AED 555,413.64 until 23 September 2000 and fees and expenses of
the arbitration of AED 118,750 plus 9% interest per annum amounting to AED
1,285,213.95 from 24 September 2000 until full payment of the Respondent for having
completed Building No. 310. The Respondent brought an action before the Court of
First Instance against the First and Second Petitioners requesting that the award be
nullified as it was rendered without an arbitration agreement and ruled on issues not
raised by the Respondent.
On 25 February 2003, the Court ratified the award. The First and Second Petitioners
each filed an appeal against the judgment. The Court joined the two appeals and then
dismissed both of them on 28 May 2003.
The First and Second Petitioners each filed a petition to cassation, which the Court
decided to join into one action.
Held The petitions to cassation were dismissed.
Index
A request to the Court to appoint an arbitrator does not in itself mean that the
arbitration is being conducted through the Court under Article 213 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
Where there are multiple arbitrators, one arbitrator may schedule a hearing to render
the award upon the express or implied authorization of the tribunal. Deliberation in
the text of the award can be undertaken by arbitrators at any time after the end of
pleadings and before rendering the award. The signature of the arbitrators on the
award indicates that it has been rendered by those arbitrators and that the
deliberation has also been undertaken by those arbitrators. The award shall not be
nullified if one of the members of the tribunal was abroad at the time the award was
passed, as long as it is proved that the arbitrator in question attended the pleadings,
participated in the rendering of the award and signed the original copy of the award
submitted to the Court of First Instance.
Article 218 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: “The arbitrators shall be allowed to
valuate their fees and the arbitration expenditures, and they may inflict all or part of
them on the losing party, and the court, on the basis of the request of one of the
litigant parties, may amend that valuation with what shall be adequate to the effort
done and the litigation nature” The estimation of the arbitrators’ fees is therefore
within the competence of the arbitrators. The overestimation of fees does not nullify

the award. A reduction in fees can only be achieved by filing a motion with the Court.
The Court’s judgment will have absolute authority in this regard, as long as the Court
clarifies the reasons upon which its judgment is based. The estimation of fees shall fall
under the jurisdiction of the trial Court.
The right to litigation is a right guaranteed to all regardless of whether the litigant is a
national or a foreigner, an individual or a limited liability company.
Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code determines the circumstances in which
litigants may file a motion to nullify an arbitral award, and these circumstances relate
exclusively to arbitral procedure.
Index
The determination of a time limit for the rendering of the award does not preclude an
express or implied agreement to extend the time limit or to authorize the arbitrator to
extend the time limit from the existing one. Such an implicit agreement can consist of
the attendance of the parties at a hearing after the lapse of the time limit.
Furthermore, the Court may extend the time limit upon the request of one of the
parties or the arbitration panel, provided that the extended time limit continues from
the previous time limit.
Judgment The First Petitioner's first argument was that Article 213.1 of the Civil Procedure Code
provides that arbitrators in an arbitration that is undertaken through the court must
deposit the arbitral award and the originals of the arbitration deed, minutes and
documents with the clerk of the court that is competent to hear the action within 15
days of the passing of an award and that the arbitrators must also deposit a copy of
the arbitral award to be handed to each party to the dispute within five days of
depositing the original of the award. This argument is inadmissible. A request to the
Table of contents
court to appoint an arbitrator does not in itself mean that the arbitration is being
conducted through the court. In this case, the Court has done nothing except apply a
legal text enabling the litigants to proceed with the arbitration outside the court.
Therefore, the provisions in Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to
arbitration outside the court shall apply. Article 213.3 of the Civil Procedure Code,
which relates to arbitrations outside the court, provides: “As for the arbitration which
takes place between the litigant parties outside the court, the arbitrators should
deliver a copy of the decision to each party within five days from the delivery of the
arbitration decision and the court shall examine the authentication or the nullity of the
decision according to the request of one of the litigant parties through the usual
procedures of the action prosecution.” The documents show that the procedure
outlined in Article 213.3 was followed.
The First Petitioner's second argument that the arbitration deed must be drawn up
and an original copy deposited along with the other documents relating to the
proceedings is also inadmissible. The agreement to enter into arbitration can be
mentioned in the same instrument that forms the subject of the dispute or can be
mentioned separately, for example in an arbitration deed. An arbitration agreement in
the disputed instrument would be sufficient for the validity of proceedings. Where
such an agreement exists, there is no need to draw up an independent document.
The First Petitioner's third argument that a member of the arbitral tribunal was absent
and abroad at the time of the decision to schedule a hearing to render an award in the
action as well as at the time of the rendering of the award is inadmissible. In the case
of multiple arbitrators, one of them may schedule a hearing to render the award upon
the express or implied authorization of the tribunal. Arbitrators can deliberate at any
time between the end of the pleadings and the rendering of the award. The signature
of the arbitrators on the award indicates that it has been rendered and deliberated by
those arbitrators. The award shall not be nullified if one of the members of the tribunal
is abroad at the time the award is passed, as long as it is proved that the arbitrator in

question attended the pleadings, participated in the rendering of the award and
signed the original copy of the award submitted to the Court of First Instance. The
award therefore does not violate the law.
The argument that the arbitration panel had combined the arbitrators’ expenses and
fees and the attorney’s fees into one amount – a concealment that could lead to the
nullification of the award – is inadmissible. Article 218 of the Civil Procedure Code
provides: “The arbitrators shall be allowed to valuate their fees and the arbitration
expenditures, and they may inflict all or part of them on the losing party, and the
court, on the basis of the request of one of the litigant parties, may amend that
valuation with what shall be adequate to the effort done and the litigation nature.”
Table of contents
This indicates that the estimation of the arbitrators’ fees is within the competence of
the arbitrators. The overestimation of fees does not nullify the award. A reduction in
fees can only be achieved by filing a motion with the Court. The Court’s judgment will
have absolute authority in this regard, as long as the Court clarifies the reasons upon
which its judgment is based. The challenged judgment rejected the reduction of the
arbitrators’ fees, on the basis that “it is proved that the arbitration panel has heard the
dispute during the period from 11 April 2000 until the rendering of the award on 22
September 2001, which is a period exceeding one year and five months; the
arbitrators have undoubtedly exerted the time and effort during such period in
agreement with the fees’ estimation, and accordingly the request to reduce the fees
shall be out of place and be rejected by the Court.” The estimation of fees shall fall
under the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The allegation of concealment due to the
absence of a fee breakdown is rejected, as the amount was described in the award
and the arbitration fees were estimated by the tribunal.
The Second Petitioner's first argument was that the Respondent is not a limited
liability company but an individual entity owned by a non-national, that the
Respondent accordingly does not have capacity in the arbitration and that the award
should therefore be null and void. This argument is rejected, as the Respondent shall
not be deprived of the capacity to agree to arbitration. The right to litigation is a right
guaranteed to all regardless of whether the litigant is a national or a foreigner, an
Index
individual or a limited liability company.
The Second Petitioner's second, third and fourth arguments are rejected since every
challenge filed against an arbitral award that relates to the weighing-up of substantive
evidence or a lack of validity or reasons on the part of the arbitrators is inadmissible.
Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code determines the circumstances in which
litigants may file a motion to nullify an arbitral award, and these circumstances relate
exclusively to arbitral procedure. The arguments raised by the Second Petitioner for
the nullity of the award in question do not fall under those listed in Article 216, and this
challenge is accordingly rejected.
The Second Petitioner's fifth challenge that the award made decisions on matters that
were not requested in the initiatory pleading is rejected, as this was a special
arbitration taking place outside the court. Accordingly, requests are not mentioned in
the initiatory pleading submitted to the court, as the action has not been referred
from the court to the arbitral tribunal. The content of the award proves that the
matters ruled upon had been requested by the parties.
The Second Petitioner's sixth challenge was that the Court that rendered the
challenged judgment rejected the request to nullify the award, even though it was
rendered outside the time limit specified for passing the award. This challenge is
rejected, as the determination of a time limit for the rendering of the award does not
preclude an express or implied agreement to extend the time limit or to authorize the
arbitrator to extend the time limit. An implied agreement can consist of the

attendance of the parties at a hearing after the lapse of the time limit. Furthermore,
the Court may extend the time limit upon the request of one of the parties or the
arbitration panel, provided that the extended time limit continues from the previous
time limit. The challenged judgment stated in its reasons that “the arbitrators have
undertaken their assignment and for lack of a sufficient time limit … to render an
award, the specified time limit has been extended by the agreement of the parties to
the dispute from 23 March 2001 until 23 September 2001, in accordance with the
minutes of the arbitration hearings. On 22 September 2001, the arbitration panel has
rendered the award in this dispute.” This adequately demonstrates that the arbitration
award had been rendered within the specified time limit.
Index
The Second Petitioner's last argument that arbitrators should not be entitled to
receive any fees in the case of the nullification of their award or a lack of agreement
with the parties on the estimation of those fees is inadmissible. The estimation of the
arbitrators’ fees is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators in accordance with Article
218 of the Civil Procedure Code. The arbitrators are not bound to agree their
estimated fee with the parties. However, the Court may modify the estimated fee
upon the request of one of the litigants in line with the effort exerted and the nature
of the dispute. This challenge is dismissed as the challenged judgment ruled not to
modify the arbitrators’ fees, and this judgment was within the limits of its jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present petitions to cassation are dismissed.

Table of contents

Petition to Cassation No. 503 of 2003 issued on 15 May 2004

Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Taking of oath
Summary The Petitioner initiated the action before the Dubai Court of First Instance requesting
of facts the Court to ratify the award rendered under the auspices of the Dubai Chamber of
Commerce and Industry on 20 February 2002, as well as to amend a material error in
the award. The Petitioner indicated that, on 30 March 1993, it entered into an
agreement with the Respondent whereby the latter was under an obligation to
develop a world-class park as well as a commercial and residential area in Dubai. After
Table of contents
the Petitioner had finished the design but before it had commenced the execution of
the project, the Respondent terminated the agreement. Arbitration was commenced
after the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement regarding payment for the
services rendered by the Petitioner. On 20 February 2002, the arbitrator rendered an
award ordering the Respondent to pay the Petitioner damages and interest on the
amount of the damages until they have been paid in full.
The Attorney General, in his capacity as a representative of the Respondent,

requested the invalidation of the award indicating that it was invalid for several
reasons, including the fact that the arbitrator:
1. heard testimonies from both witnesses and experts without administering their
oaths;
2. heard some witnesses’ testimonies in the presence of other witnesses who either
had already given their testimonies or were due to give their testimonies later in
the proceedings;
3. did not issue the award within six months as from the commencement of
arbitration on 26 July 2000, but rather issued the award on 20 February 2002;
4. acted beyond his mission, as his award included more than the matters agreed
upon between the parties under the arbitration agreement;
Index
5. adjudged a legal interest, which was not provided for in the arbitration agreement;
and
6. determined excessive arbitration costs and expenses, which did not reflect the
actual costs.
The Court annulled the award, at which point the Petitioner appealed the judgment
before the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner then further
challenged the judgment by submitting a petition to cassation, and the Respondent
requested the dismissal of the petition to cassation.
Arbitrators shall require witnesses to take the oath before they provide their
testimonies, regardless of whether or not such a procedure is requested by the
disputing parties. If this procedure is violated, according to Article 211 of the Civil
Procedure Code, the award is null and void. This applies even if the interested party
waives its right before and after the award is given.

Judgment The Petitioner argued that the challenged judgment involved a breach and a
misapplication of the law, as well as defective causation and breach of the right to
defence. The Petitioner further indicated that Article 41 of the Evidence Law
concerning civil and commercial transactions and Article 211 of the Civil Procedure
Code do not provide that the testimony of a witness will be invalid if given without
taking the oath. According to Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the procedure
shall not be deemed invalid, unless it is explicitly stipulated by law or if an essential
default or defect exists precluding the attainment of the purpose for which the
procedure is undertaken. The Petitioner argued that the arbitrator is exempt from the
procedural rules, save those enumerated under the arbitration chapter of the Civil
Procedure Code, and that the imperative form of the law does not necessarily mean
Index
that invalidity is the inevitable result of any breach of such procedures. The Petitioner
contended that the wording of the oath taken by the witnesses was agreed upon
between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Furthermore, the Petitioner indicated
that the Respondent did not object to the wording of the oath taken by witnesses
during the arbitration proceedings and did not request that they take the oath in the
wording prescribed under Article 41 of the Evidence Law. The Petitioner concluded
that the Respondent accepted the wording of the oath in accordance with Article 30
of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 14.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and
Article 8 of the Regulation Governing Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration of the
Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Finally, the Petitioner argued that the arbitrator affirmed in the award that neither
party had any objection to the manner in which the arbitration was conducted and
that arbitrators are not subject to the provisions of the Evidence Law. The lawmaker
has not stipulated a specific wording for the oath by which arbitrators should abide,
Table of contents
as arbitration is an important means for resolving disputes arising out of international

commercial contracts between parties of different nationalities, beliefs and cultures.
Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the challenged judgment annulling the award
be deemed defective and overturned on the grounds that the witnesses had not
taken the oath.
The Court of Cassation held the above arguments to be groundless, as Article 6 of the
Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation of the Dubai Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, promulgated by Decree No. 2 of 1994, provides: “Where no
special provision is made in this Regulation, the procedural rules agreed upon by the
parties shall be applicable to any dispute submitted to the Chamber for conciliation or
arbitration. In case the parties fail to agree on the said procedural rules, the
Conciliation or Arbitration Panel shall set the applicable procedures without prejudice
to the imperative provisions of laws applicable and prevailing in the Emirate.”
According to the Decree, and as established by the case law, the procedural rules
applicable to arbitration conducted under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce
and Industry of Dubai are provided for in the aforementioned regulation. Where no
provision is made in the said regulation, the procedural rules agreed upon by the
disputing parties shall be applicable. When the parties fail to agree on such rules, the
arbitrators shall set the applicable procedures, provided that such procedures are
consistent with the imperative provisions of laws applicable and prevailing in the
Emirate of Dubai. Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules approved by the UN
Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was applied to the arbitration
procedures and provides: “1. In case the disputing parties agree in writing to resolve
any disputes arising out of the contract by way of arbitration under UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, then such disputes shall be settled as per the said rules, subject to
any amendment approved by the parties in writing. 2. Arbitration shall be subject to
the said rules, unless any such rule is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the law

applicable to arbitration and whereby both parties are governed, and in this case such
law shall prevail.” Thus, in case the disputing parties agree to resolve any dispute
arising between them by way of arbitration in accordance with the procedures
prescribed under the UNCITRAL Rules, then such rules shall be applicable, except for
those that are inconsistent with the provisions of the law applicable to arbitration. The
latest version of the Civil Procedure Code prevailing in the UAE shall also be
applicable. Clause 19 of the arbitration agreement stipulates that arbitration shall be
conducted in accordance with procedures agreed upon by the parties and with any
matters determined by the arbitrator, provided that such procedures and matters
entail no contradiction with any law or procedure prevailing in the Emirate of Dubai.
Article 40 of the Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation of the Chamber
Table of contents
of Commerce and Industry of Dubai provides: “Testimony may be provided verbally or
otherwise, without taking the oath, through a written acknowledgement signed by the
relevant witness and duly notarized. By way of exception from the aforementioned
text, the testimony must be made along with the taking of the oath in case the oath is
obligatory in accordance with the law applicable to arbitration procedures. In all cases,
the arbitration panel may summon the witness for discussion.” According to this
article, if the law applicable to the arbitration procedures necessitates the
administration of an oath before the witness provides testimony, then the arbitrator
must require any such witness to take the oath.
The arbitration was conducted in Dubai under the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry rules, in accordance with the procedures stipulated under the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, which provide that the provisions of the applicable law shall prevail
in case the UNCITRAL Rules contradict such law.
The law applicable to arbitration procedures, as mentioned above, is the Civil

Procedure Code. Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: “The arbitrators
should administer an oath on the witnesses and everyone who shall perjure before the
arbitrators shall be considered a committer of the crime of perjury.” According to this
provision, as well as to what is established and customary in the adjudication of the
courts, arbitrators must administer the oath before witnesses provide their testimony.
Index
This provision was included in an imperative form in the arbitration chapter of the Civil
Procedure Code to ensure the truthfulness and authenticity of witness testimonies,
which are of great value and importance. This provision is also aimed at deterring
anyone from committing perjury offences and assuring litigants that the testimony of
witnesses is truthful and accurate. As such, the law considers a person providing false
testimony to have committed the offence of perjury laid down in Article 252 of the
Penal Code. By virtue of the law, any person who commits perjury before a panel with
the authority to hear the testimony of witnesses shall be penalized. Hence, arbitrators
may not neglect this procedure, even if the litigants raise no objection to its violation
during the hearing of witnesses. If any such violation has taken place, the arbitration
award shall be deemed null and void. Even if the disputing parties waive their right to
claim such nullity before the award is passed, the award shall still remain invalid
pursuant to the Article 216.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides: “The
acceptance of the nullity shall not be restrained by the litigant party’s relinquishment
of his right therein before the delivery of the arbitrators’ decision.”
According to Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, a procedure shall not be deemed
invalid, unless it is explicitly stipulated by law or in cases where an essential default or
defect exists precluding the attainment of the purpose for which the procedure is
undertaken. Hence, a procedure shall not be deemed invalid, even if the law stipulates
otherwise, in cases where it is proved that the purpose of the procedure has been
attained. As the above-mentioned purpose can only be fulfilled by administering
oaths to witnesses before they provide their testimony, the litigant may adhere to

such invalidity before the Court even if no objection was raised before the arbitrator
regarding the failure to abide by this procedure.
It is established, according to Article 41.2 of the Evidence Law, that the wording of the
oath that witnesses are required to take shall be as follows: “I swear to speak the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.” If necessary, the administration of the oath
shall be made in accordance with the religion of the witness. This means that any
other formula not including the above-mentioned wording shall not be deemed a valid
oath substantiating the truthfulness of the testimony. The Petitioner’s claim as to the
witnesses having to take the oath according to a certain wording agreed upon
between the parties was held by the Court to be invalid; the witnesses did not take
Index
any oath. The minutes of the arbitration sessions show that the arbitrator warned the
witnesses of the following: “Be informed, in your capacity as a witness, that you are
required to tell the whole truth or otherwise you will be held liable. Are you aware of
this?” Such warning may not replace the administration of an oath and may not be
used as a wording thereof. Article 216.1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: “The
litigant parties may request the nullity of the arbitrators’ decision when the court
examines its authentication and that shall be in the following circumstances: … (c) If a
nullity in the decision or a nullity in the procedures which has affected the decision
has occurred”
It is established that the arbitrator who issued the award that forms the subject matter
of the present dispute had heard the testimonies of witnesses without administering
their oaths. The said award has accordingly been deemed invalid. The award was
based on the testimonies of witnesses who did not take the oath. Therefore, the
award was deemed null and void, and this fact cannot be altered by the provision in
Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code according to which arbitrators are not bound
Table of contents
by any procedures other than those provided in Chapter 3 of the Civil Procedure
Code, since Article 211 of the Code expressly provided for the administration of the
oath to witnesses.
The challenged judgment did not involve any breach or misapplication of the law. The
above arguments made against the challenged judgment are groundless.


Summary The parties signed an arbitration document whereby they agreed to nominate an
of facts arbitrator to settle the dispute between them. The arbitrator held the first meeting on
26 May 2002, at which the parties submitted their motions and evidence. The
arbitration sessions took place until the arbitrator issued his award on 29 January
2003 in favour of the Petitioner, who filed his claim to get the award ratified and
enforced. The Respondent objected to the arbitrators’ award as it had been issued
Table of contents
after the legally fixed term and on the ground that it breached the arbitration
document and public order. On 15 April 2003, the Court issued a decision rejecting the
ratification of the award. The Petitioner filed an appeal and on 28 September 2003
the Court, in the absence of the parties, ruled to reject the appeal and to confirm the
initial judgment. The Petitioner objected to the appealed judgment by way of
cassation. The Respondent’s attorney deposited a defence memorandum requesting
the dismissal of the challenge within the legal time period.
Article 210.1 of the Civil Procedure Code states: “If the litigant parties haven’t set, as a
condition in the agreement, a date for the arbitration the arbitrator should arbitrate
within six month from the date of the session of the first arbitration, otherwise anyone
who wanted of the litigant parties may prosecute the litigation to the court or may
continue therein before the court if it was prosecuted before that.”
It is established by the Court that a failure to issue the award within the period agreed
upon by the parties or the period set forth in the above-mentioned article if the
parties do not agree on a period shall result in the invalidity of the arbitrators’ award,
unless the Court, when hearing such a motion, finds that the challenging party
expressly or impliedly accepted the arbitrators’ award after the expiry of the time limit
Index
for its issuance.
Judgment The Petitioner alleged that the challenged judgment was issued in contravention of
the law and included an incorrect inference, as the arbitration document stipulated
that the renewal of the arbitration period six months after the expiry of the initial
arbitration period fell within the arbitrator’s authority if he deemed it necessary. The
first arbitration session was held on 26 May 2002. On 31 October 2003, the arbitrator
decided to extend the arbitration term for another three months commencing from
the date of expiry of the first period, which was due to end on 25 November 2002. As
such, the arbitration period was extended until 24 February 2003. The arbitrator’s
award was issued on 19 January 2003. Therefore, the award was issued within the
extension period and should be endorsed.
The Respondent alleged that the award was issued in contradiction to the intention of
the parties as per the arbitration document and the relevant correspondence between
the parties during the signing period. It was also stated during the session dated 8
June 2003 that the parties authorized the arbitrator to renew the arbitration period if
he should deem it necessary. According to the Petitioner, the challenged judgment
determined that the Respondent’s withdrawal from the arbitration sessions dated 24
October 2002 affected the arbitration, while Article 208.2 of the Civil Procedure Code
allows the arbitrator to rule on the basis of the motions of a single party, if the other
party fails to attend the session. In addition, the authorization of the arbitrator to
renew the arbitration period shall not constitute a power of attorney that may be
revoked, as the arbitrator replaces the judge in the settlement of dispute. If the
arbitration agreement allows him to extend the arbitration period, the extension shall

be deemed to take place automatically if the dispute is not settled within the first
period. The Respondent failed to appear before the arbitrator when the latter issued
his initial award referring the issue to investigation. Therefore, the challenged
judgment failed to verify the Petitioner’s defence arguments inviting the arbitrator to
indicate the basis on which he extended the arbitration period. In addition, the award
did not answer the Petitioner’s request to confirm a relevant attachment number.
The Court dismissed the petition as per Article 210.1 and Article 216 of the Civil
Procedure Code. Failure to issue the award within the period agreed upon by the
parties shall result in the invalidity of the arbitrators’ award, unless the Court, when
hearing such a motion, finds that the challenging party expressly or impliedly
Index
accepted the arbitrators’ award after the expiry of the time limit for its issuance. The
first session referred to in Article 210.1 of the Civil Procedure Code was held on 26 May
2002. Since the Respondent was neither present in person nor by proxy from 24
October 2002 onwards after seeking to withdraw from the arbitration and the
arbitrator issued his award on 29 January 2003, the arbitrator should be deemed to
have exceeded the set period.
The Respondent’s defence argument concerning the invalidity of the arbitration

document on the ground that it exceeded the set period is acceptable without being
affected by the Petitioner’s argument that the parties authorized the arbitrator to
renew the arbitration term in the seventh article of the arbitration document, as this
article states: “The arbitrator shall have the authority to estimate the arbitration fees,
which, in addition to any costs related to the renewal of the arbitration period, shall be
borne by the parties, if he deems necessary.” This sentence clearly provides for the
estimation of the arbitrators’ fees and has nothing to do with the renewal of the
arbitration period. The invalidation of the award is acceptable, as it is based on the
Table of contents
correct documents and does not contradict the correct interpretation of the seventh
article of the arbitration document, which did not include any express or implied
agreement between the parties to authorize the arbitrator to extend the set date to
issue his award. Since the document did not include any evidence that the parties
agreed to extend the arbitration period beyond the arbitration document, the entire
objection has no basis.

Petition No. 43 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 13 April 2003
UAE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION

Petition No. 43 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 13 April 2003
Summary An insurance company (the “Company”) initiated a legal action before the Sharjah
of facts Court of First Instance against the two Petitioners requesting that the Court oblige
them to jointly provide an account statement detailing:
1. The production achieved by one of the Petitioner, in its capacity as an insurance
agent under the agency contract concluded between the parties;
2. The amount of commissions to determine the amount due to the Company
Table of contents
(Claimant before the Court of First Instance).
The Company further requested the Court to appoint an expert, to award whatever
amount determined by such expert to the Company and to oblige the Petitioners to
return the insurance policies owned by the Company. The Petitioners argued before
the Court of First Instance that the Court had no jurisdiction due to the existence of
an arbitration agreement and requested that the Court appoint an accountant to act
as sole arbitrator. The Court of First Instance accepted the Petitioners’ plea. The
Company subsequently appealed the judgment, which was dismissed by the Court of
Appeal. The Company thereafter challenged the judgment before the Court of
Cassation, which overturned the challenged judgment and rejected the Petitioners’
plea that the Court had no jurisdiction owing to the existence of an arbitration
agreement. The Court of Cassation remanded the case to the Court of Appeal, which
cancelled the appealed judgment and dismissed the plea regarding the existence of
an arbitration clause, considering that the arbitration period of three months, starting
from the date of the first arbitral session and provided for in the agreement, had
elapsed. The Petitioners challenged the judgment before the Court of Cassation.
Held The Petition to cassation was dismissed.
1. According to the provisions of Articles 203 and 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, if
Index
the parties agree, in writing, to refer any dispute arising out of a given contract to
arbitration which is to be conducted within a certain period, then the arbitrator
shall abide by such a period. However, in case there is no agreement made
between the parties as to time limit for the rendering of the award, the arbitrator
shall issue his award within six months of the date of the first arbitration session.
Following the expiry of such time limit the parties may refer the dispute to the
Court.
2. The parties may explicitly or implicitly agree to extend the time limit for the
rendering of the award. Furthermore, the Court may, upon the request of the
arbitrator or either party, extend the time limit to such a period as it deems
sufficient for the settlement of the dispute. The arbitrator, however, may not extend
such period without the consent of the parties.
Judgment The appeal is based on four grounds, upon which the Petitioners claimed that the
Court of Appeal’s judgment involved a breach and misapplication of the law, defective
causation, an invalid inference, a breach of the right of defence and inconsistency with
the facts of the case.
Whereas it is established from the challenged judgment that the basic arbitration
period prescribed under the arbitration agreement is three months from the date of
the first arbitral session, that the arbitrator sent a letter on 7 May 1995 to the
Petitioner's company and a copy thereof to the Respondent informing them that all
amicable means had failed and that a date would be fixed for the arbitration session
after the general manager of the Respondent returned from abroad; and

UAE Federal Supreme Court of Cassation
Whereas the challenged judgment concluded that arbitration sessions were

conducted prior to such date, as the said letter referred to the letter dated 6 May 1995
with respect to the submission of a report concerning the subject of arbitration; and
Whereas the present action was initially filed on 7 September 1996, i.e., more than one
year from the date of the said letter and more than three years from the date of the
arbitration agreement. Meanwhile, the Petitioners did not provide any document
showing that they had agreed to extend the arbitration duration or to authorize the
court to so do;
As a result, the challenged judgment rightly held that the arbitrator had failed to issue
the award within the legal period and that there was no explicit or implicit agreement
Index
or authorization to extend such period. The plea that an arbitration agreement existed
is to be dismissed and the case is to be remanded to the Court of First Instance for
reconsideration.
As such, any argument made against the above shall be within the discretionary
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, which may decide on the existence of an
implicit or explicit agreement between the parties to extend the arbitration duration
as mentioned above. Any such argument may not be brought before the Court of
Cassation.
Accordingly, the present petition for cassation is dismissed.

Table of contents

Petition No. 32 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 8 June 2003
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

Petition No. 32 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 8 June 2003
Headnote Arbitration award – Clarification of award – Content of award – Grounds for annulment
of award – Ratification
Summary The Petitioner entered into a charter-party agreement with the Respondent for the
of facts hire of a ship. Thereafter, the Petitioner failed to return the ship it had hired from the
Respondent on the due date. The Respondent therefore requested the Court to
appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The Court appointed a maritime expert as
arbitrator. An arbitration award in favour of the Respondent was issued. The
Table of contents
Respondent requested from the Court of First Instance to ratify the arbitration award
while the Petitioner requested the invalidation of the award. The Court of First
Instance rejected the Petitioner’s request and ratified the award. The Petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal initially determined that the
award should be returned to the arbitrator for clarification; however, because of the
death of the arbitrator it could not do so. The Court upheld the decision of the Court
of First Instance. The Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.
When considering the ratification of an award, the Court may return it to the arbitrator
who issued it for clarification if the award is ambiguous.
The Court may not review the merits of the case when considering the ratification of
an award, except for matters pertaining to public order. The control of the Court is
restricted to the procedural aspects set forth in Articles 212 and 216 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
Judgment Article 214 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that if the arbitrator omits to resolve
any of the issues agreed upon in the arbitration clause, or if the award is ambiguous to
an extent preventing its execution, the ratifying court may decide to return such
award to the arbitrator to consider any omitted issues or to clarify the award.
Index
The court ruling issued to this effect shall be deemed to be issued before final
resolution of the subject matter of the arbitration. By such ruling the court may not
resolve the subject matter of the dispute that the arbitrator has resolved by means of
a final and binding award.
It is established from the case papers that the Court of Appeal decided, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 214 of the Civil Procedure Code, to return the award
to the arbitrator to consider the objections and requests made by the Petitioners in
their rejoinders and to consider any issues and notes presented by them. When the
Court of Appeal was informed of the death of the arbitrator in question, the Court
decided to consider the challenged judgment itself and to answer the objections and
requests of the Petitioners recorded in the minutes of the court hearing held on
25 September 1995.
Answering the above requests made by the Petitioners, the Court of Appeal indicated
that such claims may not be included in the statement of claim and are not
substantiated by the arbitration document. Additionally, the Court may not consider
the award or the application of Article 246 of the Maritime Trade Act in terms of their
relation to the subject matter of dispute.

Federal Supreme Court
It is established in the adjudication of this Court that the text in the first and second
paragraphs of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that “The arbitrator
shall deliver his decision without obligation to the pleading procedures except what
has been stipulated in this chapter and the procedures concerning the litigant parties’
action and hearing their defense’s aspects, and enabling them to submit their
documents, however, the litigant parties may agree on certain procedures according
to which the arbitrator should proceed…The arbitrator’s decision shall be according to
the rules of the law unless if it were authorized with the reconciliation, then it shall not
be obliged with such rules except with those related to the public order.”.
Thus, an award is not obliged to include all the requirements that a court ruling must
Index
include, even if the Court requires that the award be given in accordance with the
arbitration procedures. It is necessary that the award include, in particular, a
photocopy of the arbitration agreement, a summary of the litigants’ statements,
evidence, the grounds of the decision, the date and place of the award and the
signatures of arbitrators. This means that when the award is to be considered by the
Court for ratification, the Court may not discuss the subject matter of the award and
the extent to which it conforms to the provisions of law, except with respect to public
order.
The Court may only and exclusively consider the procedural aspects set forth in
Articles 212 and 216 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this context, the possibility of
judicial control over arbitration awards while considering award ratification requests
has been enacted by the legislator for the purpose of verifying the legality of the
arbitration procedures. Therefore, ratification by the court is limited to verification and
establishment that there is no provision or reason preventing the application of the
arbitration award in the state. If any such award fulfils the formal elements referred to
Table of contents
above, it shall be valid and applicable. In such cases, the court may not investigate the
dispute or the validity of the award and may not resolve any other dispute other than
the ratification of the award. Having fulfilled all elements mentioned above, the award
shall be deemed res judicata.

Petition No. 218 of 2004 issued on 15 May 2005 – Civil

Petition No. 218 of 2004 issued on 15 May 2005 – Civil
Headnote Arbitration – Ratification of foreign award (prior to ratification by the UAE of the New
York Convention)
Summary The Petitioner filed an action before the Dubai Court of First Instance requesting the
of facts Court to ratify and enforce in Dubai the foreign award passed in the Petitioner’s favour
by an arbitration panel in London on 25 April 2002. On 28 February 2004, the Court
ratified the award. The Respondent appealed the judgment, and on 16 June 2004 the
Court decided to cancel the appealed judgment and to remand the case to the Court
Table of contents
of First Instance. The Petitioner then challenged this judgment by way of a petition to
cassation seeking to overturn the challenged judgment. The Respondent requested
the dismissal of the petition to cassation.
The Court held that UAE national courts have competent jurisdiction to ratify awards
passed only within the United Arab Emirates. Such jurisdiction shall not be extended
to awards passed in a foreign country, irrespective of whether or not the same award
has been ratified in such foreign country.
Judgment The appeal is based on two arguments in which the Petitioner claimed that the Court
of Appeals’ judgment involved a breach and misapplication of the law, as well as a
contradiction with the facts as established by the case papers. According to the
Petitioner’s plea, Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the execution of
foreign courts’ rulings, orders and arbitration awards does not set the UAE’s accession
to an international treaty with the relevant foreign country as a condition for enforcing
foreign rulings, orders and awards in the UAE. In fact, the only condition stipulated in
the first paragraph of the law relating to the execution of foreign awards is the equal
treatment principle.
Article 25 of the Shipping Charter originally concluded between the parties, states
Index
that any dispute arising between the parties shall be referred to arbitration in London
in accordance with the English Arbitration Act of 1996. The award that was to be
ratified had become final and res judicata in accordance with the provisions of the
English Arbitration Act after being ratified by the British Consulate in Bombay and the
UAE. Both the English Arbitration Act and the Charter concluded between the parties
included no provision as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the British courts to ratify
arbitration awards passed in Britain. UAE law includes no provision as to the non-
jurisdiction of the UAE courts to ratify awards issued in Britain. Rather, such law only
requires fulfilment of all conditions stipulated under Article 235.2 of the Civil
Procedure Code concerning the enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. It is
unquestionably established from the facts of the action that neither Britain nor the
UAE have joined the New York Conventions on the Execution of Arbitration Awards
and that they have not concluded any bilateral treaty concerning the execution of
British awards in the UAE without prior ratification.
The Court considers the Petitioner’s above arguments to be inadmissible under

Chapter III of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that the lawmaker has
stipulated the rules governing arbitration conducted in the UAE and the procedures
applicable for petitioning the Court to ratify or nullify the award.
Article 212.4 of the Code provides that “the arbitrator’s judgment should be delivered
in the state of the United Arab Emirates, otherwise the rules set for the arbitrators’
decisions delivered in a foreign country shall be followed therein”. Article 213.3 further
stipulates: “As for the arbitration which takes place between the litigant parties

outside the court, the arbitrators should deliver a copy of the decision to each party
within five days from the delivery of the arbitration decision and the court shall
examine the authentication or the nullity of the decision according to the request of
one of the litigant parties through the usual procedures of the action prosecution.”
Article 215.1 of the law provides: “The arbitrators’ decision shall not be executed except
if the court in which clerk’s office the decision was deposited, has authenticated it,
and that after looking into the decision and the arbitration document and verifying
that there is no prohibition to execute it, and such court shall be authorized to amend
the material errors in the arbitrators’ decision according to the request of the
concerned persons through the proceedings set for amending the arbitrations.”
According to the law, only awards passed in the UAE shall be subject to the UAE
Index
courts. This is in contrast to foreign awards, which may not be considered by such
courts even if they have already been ratified.
This fact may not be altered by the provisions of Articles 235 and 236 of Chapter V of
the Code regarding the enforcement of court rulings, orders and arbitration awards
passed in a foreign country. Rather, the lawmaker has permitted the UAE courts to
order the enforcement of such foreign awards in the state after duly verifying that the
award in question fulfils the conditions stipulated under Article 235 of the Code. The
above-mentioned provisions relate only to the enforcement of such awards and make
no reference to the jurisdiction of the UAE’s national courts over the ratification or
nullification of such awards. On this basis, the Court considers the Petitioner’s
argument based on Article 235 to be futile.
According to Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Transactions Law, jurisdictional rules and all
procedural matters are subject to the law of the state in which the lawsuit is filed or
the proceedings are conducted, unless the provisions of any international conventions
Table of contents
applicable in the UAE contradict those rules. Accordingly, the Court considers the
Petitioner’s claim, which contradicts the rules governing arbitration under UAE law
(i.e., the Civil Procedure Code) to be groundless. The Court of Appeal dismissed the
Petitioner’s action, and the Court considers that it was correct in its decision. In
addition, the judgment should not be deemed defective based on the rules governing
the enforcement of foreign awards, as the Court of Cassation may clarify unclear
matters and rectify legal principles erroneously applied without overturning the
judgment, as established in the adjudication of this Court, provided that the result
reached in such judgment is consistent with the applicable law.


Headnote Arbitration – Validity of arbitration agreement – Form of offer and acceptance to

arbitrate – Capacity to agree to arbitration
Summary An arbitration clause was contained in the terms and conditions appended to a
of facts purchase order. The purchase order stipulated that any dispute arising between the
parties in respect of the subject of the purchase would be resolved through arbitration
by the American Arbitration Association in Boston. On the other hand, the Petitioner
proposed that the arbitration be conducted in London pursuant to the English Law.
Table of contents
The other party to the purchase order, a limited liability company, replied to the offer
of arbitration (contained in the purchase order) by means of a fax message signed by
an employee and not the manager of the company.
The Petitioner instituted an action before the Court of First Instance against the
Respondent in which the Petitioner sought an order that the Respondent pay AED
688,920 plus interest of 12% per annum. The Petitioner also sought confirmation of a
provisional attachment it had obtained for the value of the balance of the purchase
price for metal supplies that the Petitioner had supplied and installed at the
Respondent company’s premises.
The Respondent company challenged the submission to the Court of First Instance on
the basis of the arbitration agreement in the terms and conditions appended to the
purchase order.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case due to the existence of an arbitration
clause, and the Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
upheld the lower court’s judgment. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition to
cassation.
Held The Court of Appeal’s judgment was overturned.
Index
It is not compulsory for the parties’ agreement to arbitration to be established within
one document signed by both parties. It is permissible for one party’s offer to refer
their dispute to arbitration to be established in a document and for the other party’s
acceptance to be established in another document, provided that the offer confirms
the acceptance and both are identical.
The parties’ agreement to refer their dispute to arbitration could be proved either by
means of a written document signed by both parties or by letter or any other means
of written communication exchanged between parties, as long as such
communications are signed by the sender or their transmission is proved to be made
from the machine of the sender.
Moreover, arbitration agreements (whether a clause in a contract or a separate

agreement) can only be entered into by those who have the legal capacity to dispose
of the disputed rights. Apparent authority is not enough when it comes to arbitration
agreements. Each party should verify the title and capacity of the other party,
because an agreement to arbitrate involves the waiver of the inherent right to file an
action in courts.
The manager of a limited liability company is the only person to manage it. The
manager is solely entitled to agree to arbitration in the name of the company, unless
he empowers another person by virtue of a special power of attorney to act on his
behalf with respect to agreeing to arbitrate certain disputes.

Judgment Arbitration is the disputing parties’ choice of a neutral unbiased third party whose role
is to determine the resolution of that dispute without referring it to the courts.
Arbitration is established according to a specific agreement between the parties that
includes a so-called arbitration clause among its terms. It is also permissible for the
parties to stipulate in a subsequent agreement that they wish to refer an established
dispute to arbitration. This is known as an arbitration agreement.
Arbitration is based on two fundamentals. The first is the intention of the parties,
which is represented in the arbitration agreement. The second is the legislator’s
realization of such intent, which is achieved by granting the parties the right to choose
to refer their disputes to arbitration.
Index
The legislature attributes several safeguards to arbitration, as stipulated in Article

203.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that an arbitration agreement may be
proved only in writing. It is not compulsory for the parties’ agreement to arbitration to
be established within one document signed by both parties. It is permissible for one
party’s offer to refer their dispute to arbitration to be established in a document and
for the other party’s acceptance to be established in another document, provided that
the offer confirms the acceptance and both are identical.
Furthermore, the parties’ agreement to refer their dispute to arbitration can be proved
either by a written document signed by both parties or by letter or any other means
of written communication exchanged between parties, as long as such
communications are signed by the sender or their transmission is proved to be made
from the machine of the sender.
The arbitration agreement can only be valid when it is proved that the parties had the
Table of contents
joint intention to refer their dispute to arbitration, which can be inferred from the
existence of an arbitration clause within the agreement or from both parties signing a
subsequent arbitration agreement. However, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate
cannot be inferred if one of the parties did not respond to the other party’s offer of
arbitration, in spite of their mutual agreement to a contract. Furthermore, the parties’
agreement to refer their disputes to arbitration shall not be derived from the mere fact
that certain agreements between the same parties include an arbitration clause. In
other words, the parties’ intention to arbitrate cannot be presumed or implied.
Moreover, arbitration agreements (whether a clause in a contract or a separate

agreement) can only be entered into by those who have the legal capacity to dispose
of the disputed rights. Apparent authority is not enough when it comes to arbitration
agreements. Each party should verify the title and capacity of the other party,
because an agreement to arbitrate involves the waiver of the inherent right to file an
action in Court.
The manager of a limited liability company is the only person to manage it. The
manager is solely entitled to agree to arbitration in the name of the company, unless
he empowers another person by virtue of a special power of attorney to act on his
behalf with respect to agreeing to arbitrate certain disputes.
Accordingly, the Court of Cassation overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment and
remanded the case to the competent Court of First Instance.

Petition No. 118 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 21 January 2004

Petition No. 118 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 21 January 2004
Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Qualifications of arbitrators – Res

judicata
Summary The parties entered into a memorandum of association, dated 10 August 1996, for the
of facts establishment of a racing centre. The memorandum of association contained an
arbitration clause whereby any disputes arising between the parties in relation to the
memorandum were to be referred to arbitration. The agreement further designated an
arbitrator for the adjudication of any such future disputes. When a dispute arose
Table of contents
between the parties as to the proper termination of the memorandum of association,
the Respondent applied to the courts for referral of the dispute to the arbitrator
designated in the memorandum of association. The Petitioner lodged a counterclaim,
requesting the appointment of another arbitrator, i.e., other than the one designated in
the memorandum of association. The Court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered
the referral of the dispute to the arbitrator designated in the memorandum by ruling
of 8 June 1999. This judgment was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
On 9 April 2000, the arbitrator rendered an award ordering the Petitioner to pay the
Respondent a total of AED 188,360, including AED 10,000 in arbitrator fees. The Court
of First Instance ordered enforcement of the award. The Petitioner then appealed the
enforcement order, but the Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance order for
enforcement by a ruling of 20 January 2001. The Petitioner filed the present petition
to cassation.
When considering ratification or enforcement of an award, the courts shall not review
its merits.
The arbitrators are only obliged to follow those procedures laid down in the
arbitration chapter of the Civil Procedure Code and those related to calling upon the
Index
parties to litigation.
The law does not require the arbitrator to have a particular level of education.
Evidence questioning a res judicata judgment is not admissible.

Judgment The Petitioner first argued that the first instance judgment confirmed by the
challenged judgment endorsed the arbitrator’s award while the papers failed to
contain the arbitration document setting out the dispute’s subject matter, instead
confusing the arbitration clause in the contract with the arbitration document and
applying arguments from former judgments that vary in terms of subject matter and
cause from the present case.
Referring to Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court of Cassation held that
“it was established in the adjudication of this court that the contracting parties may
generally stipulate in the main contract or in a subsequent agreement to refer any
dispute arising between both of them to arbitration, provided that the subject of the
dispute shall be set out in the arbitration document or in the course of the action
trial”.
Pursuant to Article 1 and 2.49 of the Evidence Law, evidence questioning a judgment
that had been res judicata was not admissible. According to the facts demonstrated
by the papers, both litigants agreed in Clause 12 of the memorandum of association
dated 9 April 2000 to refer any dispute arising between them to the arbitrator they
designated in the memorandum of association. The judgments issued by the Court of
First Instance and the Court of Appeal referred the dispute to this arbitrator pursuant

to the arbitration clause contained in the memorandum of association. Therefore, the

challenged judgment was rendered in compliance with the law.
The Petitioner further argued that the educational level of the arbitrator was
equivalent to the sixth grade of elementary school, whereas the award needed to be
issued by a legal or accounting expert, and that the arbitrator’s award breached
Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires the arbitrator to judge pursuant
to the rules of equity. Furthermore, the arbitrator’s decision was not compliant with
Article 19 of the Companies Law, which grants the partner of a company a share in
return of his work within the company and a share in return of his participation
in the capital.
Index
The Court held that the Petitioner’s argument was groundless and irrelevant and that
the Court was not obliged to consider it. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, the arbitrators shall deliver their award not
restricted by the proceedings of the pleadings, except those provided for in the
arbitration chapter of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, it is not required to state in
the award all the particulars that should be included in a court judgment. The award
include a photocopy of the arbitration document, abstracts of the statements and
documents of the parties, the reasoning and wording of award, the date and place of
delivery and the signatures of the arbitrators.
Finally, the Court held that, when endorsing an arbitral award, the court may not
examine its conformity with any legal provisions other than the matters relating to
public order but that it may examine the procedural aspects discussed in Articles 212
and 216 of the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of limitation. Therefore, the
argument made against the endorsement of the court judgment based on the
Table of contents
educational level of the arbitrator are inadmissible, since Article 206 of the Civil
Procedure Code does not require the arbitrator to have attained a specific
educational level.

Petition No. 831 of the 25th Judicial Year AND PETITION NO. 67 OF THE 26TH JUDICIAL YEAR

Petition No. 831 of the 25th Judicial Year
and Petition No. 67 of the 26th Judicial Year issued on 23 May 2004
Headnote Arbitration – Content of award – Grounds for annulment of award – Public order
Summary The Respondent entered into a contract with the Petitioner on 14 October 1983 for the
of facts construction of 50 public houses in Sharjah and a further 53 in the Dasman area.
However, the Petitioner failed to pay the Respondent the due price. The Respondent
therefore brought an action in which it sought to oblige the Petitioner to nominate its
arbitrators and requested the Ministry of Justice to nominate the chair of the tribunal.
Table of contents
After the Petitioner nominated its arbitrator and the Ministry of Justice nominated a
chair of the tribunal, the Court transferred the case to the arbitration panel, which
issued its award on 26 March 2003 in favour of the Respondent.
The Respondent then filed a request for the ratification of the arbitral award before
the Court of First Instance. However, the Court refused to ratify the award and
annulled it. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the
decision of the Court of First Instance and ratified the arbitral award. The Petitioner
also filed an appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment, which was
considered inadmissible by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered the
Petitioner to pay AED 100,000 to each arbitrator and cancelled the judgment
regarding fees paid to the chair of the tribunal.
The Petitioner challenged this judgment in Petition No. 831 of the 25th Judicial Year,
and the same judgment was challenged by an arbitrator in Petition No. 67 of the 26th
Judicial Year.
Held The Court of Appeal’s judgment was partially upheld.
The arbitration award shall include a copy of the arbitration agreement, summaries of
the statements made and documents presented by litigants, the reasons for and
wording of award, the date and place thereof and the arbitrators’ signatures.
Index
When ratifying an award, the court shall not review its substance, save items related to
public order.
Although interest is contrary to Sharia, which relates to public order, the constitutional
circuit of the Federal Supreme Court allows interest when it is proportionally less than
the amount of the transaction.
Annulment of an arbitral award shall be restricted to errors in procedure or faults

exclusively set out in Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Petition to cassation may not be submitted by an irrelevant party to the appeal.

Judgment 1. Petition No. 831 of the 25th Judicial Year
The procedures for arbitrations provide that an arbitration award must include a copy
of the arbitration agreement, a summary of the statements made and documents
presented by litigants, the reasons for and wording of judgment, the date and place
thereof and the arbitrator’s signatures.
Upon ratification of an arbitral award, the court shall not discuss the subject matter or
the applicability of the law, except for issues relating to public order. Rather, the court
shall only examine the procedural aspects contained in Articles 212 and 216 of the Civil
Procedure Code.

It is also established according to judgment passed by this Court that all kinds of
interest, whether compound or simple, are forbidden in principle according to the
provisions of Sharia, since they are regarded as a form of usury, which is forbidden.
However, according to the judgment passed by the constitutional circuit of the
Federal Supreme Court in response to Petition No. 14 of the 19th Judicial Year, interest
regarding bank transactions is permitted, with certain limits, should the need arise.
Such transactions shall be terminated when there is no need for them. It also held that
interest on overdue payments counts as compensation to the creditors for unjust
delays caused by debtors. Since it is consistent with the provisions of Sharia, this
judgment may be applicable.
Index
The Court that issued the challenged judgment stated that “upon considering a
petition for ratification of arbitration awards, judicial control shall be limited to
verifying whether arbitrators have fulfilled formal and procedural aspects in order to
demonstrate the errors in their award”. However, in stating that the contract between
the parties was not related to bank transactions and that no interest was payable, the
appealed judgment addressed the subject matter of the dispute, thereby going
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal erred in that it ordered the Petitioner to pay a
sum of AED 100,000 to the wrong arbitrator. This error should be corrected in the
fourth paragraph.
Accordingly, the challenged judgment is partially overruled concerning the fourth

paragraph.
2. Petition No. 67 of the 26th Judicial Year

Table of contents
The Respondent pleaded for the rejection or invalidity of the petition to cassation on
the ground that the Petitioner was an irrelevant party to the challenged judgment
who was not part of the litigation.
This argument is correct, because Articles 150 and 173.1 of the Civil Procedure Code
stipulate that a petitioner to cassation shall be a relevant party to the litigation in
which the appealed judgment was passed. The purpose of this condition is that
petitions should be submitted by and against the same parties in appeal. Being an
irrelevant party, the Petitioner may not challenge the judgment even if it suffers harm
ensuing from the said judgment. This Petitioner can only offer evidence when it is
demanded to do so or if evidence is provided against it. In a petition to cassation, the
Petitioner must be a relevant party to litigation who has been obliged by the
challenged judgment to perform a certain act.
Accordingly, the petition to cassation is inadmissible.

Petition No. 438 of the 23rd Judicial Year issued on 12 July 2004
SUPREME FEDERAL COURT

Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Content of award – Grounds for

annulment of award
Summary The Respondent had filed an action against the Petitioners before the Sharjah Court
of facts of First Instance requesting the ratification of the award issued in the dispute arising
between the Respondent and Petitioners on 16 July 2000. According to this award,
the Petitioners were obliged to pay the Respondent the amount of USD 151,200. On 14
February 2001, the Court of First Instance decided to ratify the award. However, this
Table of contents
judgment was appealed by the Petitioners before the Sharjah Court of Appeal. On 28
August 2001, the Court of Appeal upheld the appealed judgment. Nonetheless, the
Petitioners challenged this judgment by means of a petition to cassation.
The award must include a copy of the arbitration agreement to ensure that the award
was passed within the limits of the competence conferred upon the arbitrators under
the agreement. It is not necessary to mention the provisions of the arbitration
agreement in the award; the purport thereof shall be sufficient, yet without any
alteration to its meaning.
Arbitrators are exempt from the rules governing ordinary legal proceedings save for
matters provided for under the arbitration rules contained in the Civil Procedure Code
and procedures agreed upon by the parties.
Challenges to the validity of awards can only be made against defects in procedures
and not against the arbitrator’s discretion to decide on the merits of the case. The
grounds for challenging awards are limited to those laid down in Article 216 of the
Civil Procedure Code. Any unsubstantiated arguments against the validity of awards
are inadmissible.
Index
Judgment The appeal is based on two arguments.
Firstly, the Petitioners insisted on the invalidity of the award, arguing that it was
passed without an arbitration agreement validly concluded between the parties. It
was further argued that the grounds of the award included no reference to the
arbitration agreement and that no copy of the agreement had been enclosed along
with the award. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal dismissed this plea on the ground
that a request for the appointment of an arbitrator had the same practical effect as an
arbitration agreement. The Petitioners insisted that this fact did not necessarily mean
that an arbitration agreement was in existence, as the purpose intended by the
lawmaker was to encourage the use of an arbitration agreement detailing the
requirements of the arbitration envisaged. Accordingly, the challenged judgment
involved a breach and misapplication of the law.
The Court considers the Petitioners’ argument to be inadmissible. Under the

provisions of Article 212.1 and 212.5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the lawmaker
stipulated that the award shall include a copy of the arbitration agreement annexed to
it. This condition is, in essence, made with a view to verifying that the award is given
within the limits of the arbitrators’ competence and authority as extracted from the
requisite arbitration agreement. The award shall include a copy of the agreement,
even if a copy of the agreement, or the original as the case may be, is submitted to
the Court during the consideration of the dispute. It is not necessary to mention the
exact provisions of the arbitration agreement, providing there is no alteration to its
meaning. Arbitration agreements are not required to exist as a separate document,

Supreme Federal Court
but may also be included in a contract as an arbitration clause. The Court considers
that an arbitration clause has the same meaning as an arbitration agreement. It is
established from the case papers that the arbitration agreement between the
Petitioners and the Respondent took the form of an arbitration clause in Clause 10 of
the contract concluded between them on 1 February 1994. It is further established that
the award included the provisions of the contract, including the arbitration clause
referred to above. The Court considers that the award shall be deemed to have
fulfilled the requirements stipulated under the provisions of Article 212.5 of the Civil
Procedure Code and that it shall therefore be deemed valid.
Secondly, the Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeal’s judgment involved
Index
defective causation and invalid inference. The Petitioners objected to the report of the
expert appointed by the arbitrator, arguing that the expert did not personally meet
with or hear the arguments of the disputing parties. The Petitioners further argued,
among others things, that the expert did not examine the documents submitted by
the disputing parties but rather delegated this task to his employees. Therefore, the
report of the expert led to an award that should be considered null and void. As the
challenged judgment did not address this argument and dismissed the Petitioners’
plea that the award was invalid, the Petitioners argued that the judgment had been
based on defective causation and invalid inference.
The Court considers the above argument to be invalid. According to Article 212 of the
Civil Procedure Code, the arbitrator shall be exempt from the rules applicable to
proceedings before courts of law, with the exception of procedures prescribed under
the arbitration chapter of the Code or otherwise agreed upon between the disputing
parties, including procedures relating to the summoning of the parties, the hearing of
their arguments and their ability to submit documents. This exemption also applies to
Table of contents
procedures relating to evidence mentioned under the law. According to the Evidence
Law, arbitrators in civil and commercial transactions may appoint experts who may,
for the sake of accomplishing their mission, seek assistance from employees or any
other persons under their supervision. The opinions expressed in the expert’s report
shall be subject to discussion by the disputing parties. In this context, the Court
considers that the expert’s report is no more than an element of evidence brought to
the attention of the arbitrator, who has the discretion to decide how much weight
should be attached to such reports.
In accordance with Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court considers that
any argument claiming that an award is invalid shall be made on the ground of a
procedural defect and should not pertain to the decision made by the arbitrator.
Defects in arbitration procedures are exclusively enumerated in Article 216 of the Code
so that no analogy may be drawn. These defects relate mainly to the arbitration
agreement or arbitration procedures. Defects will thus often arise in cases where an
award is given without a valid arbitration document or based on an invalid or time-
lapsed arbitration document. Defects may also arise in instances where the arbitrator
acts beyond his competence contemplated under an arbitration agreement or in
breach of a rule pertaining to public order. Article 216 also exclusively enumerates the
cases in which an award shall be deemed invalid due to a defect in the arbitration
procedures, i.e., in cases where the award is given by arbitrators not appointed in
accordance with the law or by some arbitrators who are not authorized to issue the
award in absence of others, in cases in which the condition of confrontation between
the disputing parties has not been fulfilled, in cases involving a breach of the right of
defence or in cases in which the award or any procedure affecting the award has
become invalid. The Court considers that any argument not related to the above-
mentioned cases or otherwise related to the rules of evidence, such as claims
regarding the discretionary power of the arbitrator, the arbitrator’s failure to resolve

any substantive issues or the insufficiency or invalidity of grounds, shall always be

inadmissible. Accordingly, the Court does not accept the arguments raised by the
Petitioners as to the expert’s report. The Court of Appeal has rightly concluded that all
formal requirements were met by the challenged award, noting “the dispute was
referred to the arbitrator who decided on the same within the limits of the arbitration
agreement. The said award was passed and signed by the arbitrator elected and was
phrased according to the wording set under law for awards. The award was not based
on an invalid procedure … and that the Court finds that the remaining arguments do
not affect the validity of the award…. Hence, the request to invalidate the award shall
be legally groundless and consequently dismissible…”. The Court considers that the
challenged judgment was passed in accordance with the law.
Table of contents
Accordingly, the award is valid and the petition to cassation is dismissed.
Index


Petition No. 575 of the 25th Judicial Year issued on 5 October 2004
Summary The Respondents requested and received a decision, rendered by the Rental Dispute
of facts Resolution Committee of the Sharjah municipality, instructing the Petitioner to vacate
a property owned by the Respondents following the expiry of a lease contract. The
Respondents received this judgment despite knowing that the lease had been
rescinded by virtue of another lease contract, which had not expired. The Petitioner
then resorted to the Rental Dispute Resolution Committee of the Sharjah municipality,
Index
asking for the judgment to be cancelled and the later lease contract to be deemed in
force. The Rental Dispute Resolution Committee stated that it had no specific
jurisdiction to hear a request to challenge the decision, which would fall under the
jurisdiction of the ordinary judiciary. The Court of First Instance then also issued a
decision stating its lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Petitioner’s action. The
Petitioner appealed this judgment, and the Court of Appeal decided, on 31 May 2003,
to uphold the appealed judgment. The Petitioner then filed a petition to cassation,
alleging a violation and misapplication of the law. The Petitioner’s argument was that
the Rental Dispute Resolution Committee had avoided its role in stating that it did not
have jurisdiction to hear the petition, thereby violating the rules of justice and
infringing the constitutional rights of the Petitioner.
Article 216 of the of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the legislature has given
the losing party the right to institute an initial motion requesting the arbitration award
Table of contents
to be nullified that is similar to the right given to the prevailing party to institute an
initial motion requesting the arbitration award to be ratified through regular legal
proceedings. Also, the losing party has the right to file an incidental request to nullify
the award when the action to ratify the award is heard.
Judgment The Petitioner’s argument is appropriate based on the following grounds.
Article 4 of Local Law No. 6 of 2001, which governs the relationship between lessors
and lessees in the emirate of Sharjah, provides that “a competent committee called
the Rental Dispute Resolution Committee shall be headquartered in the Sharjah
municipality”.
Article 5 of Local Law No. 6 of 2001 further stipulates: “Reviewing and resolving
urgently by arbitration all disputes arising from the lease contract between the lessor
and the lessee shall be the jurisdiction of the Rental Committee…. The awards
rendered by the Committee in claims whose value does not exceed AED 100,000 shall
be final, with complaints to be filed to the Grievance Committee within 15 days against
awards in other cases…. The award shall be carried out, after being ratified by the
competent court; namely, the Federal Court of First Instance within whose jurisdiction
the leased premises are located, by the execution judge.”
Essentially, the Rental Dispute Resolution Committee is an arbitral panel.
Article 8.G of Decision No. 15 of 2001 of the Executive Council of the Sharjah Emirate
concerning procedures of the Committees of Dispute Resolution and Complaint
provides that “after considering the abovementioned provisions, the Committee may
determine procedures to be followed and shall not be restricted by the measures of
the procedures provided for in the applicable laws except for Articles 203-217 of Law
No. 11 of 1992”.

Petition No. 575 of the 25th Judicial Year issued on 5 October 2004
In addition, as per Article 5 above, the awards rendered by the Committee regarding
claims exceeding the amount of AED 100,000 may be challenged before the
Grievance Committee, which consists of three judges. The Grievance Committee’s
decisions shall be deemed final and shall not be subject to challenge by any means of
litigation. The Federal Court of First Instance in whose jurisdiction the leased premises
are situated has jurisdiction to ratify (or annul) the awards rendered by the
Committee, as is the case for arbitral awards generally in cases where the award has
been made out of court.
Article 216 of the of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the legislature has given
the losing party the right to institute an initial motion requesting the arbitration award
Table of contents
to be nullified that is similar to the right given to the prevailing party to institute an
initial motion requesting the arbitration award to be ratified through regular legal
proceedings. Also, the losing party has the right to file an incidental request to nullify
the award when the action to ratify the award is heard.
In this case, the arbitration award that formed the subject of the dispute was rendered
outside the courts, and the Court of First Instance accordingly has jurisdiction to hear
the action relating to its nullification. The Court of Appeal’s judgment upholding the
Court of First Instance’s decision has violated and misapplied the law, since the Court
of First Instance is competent to hear the nullification action of the Committee’s
decision.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is overturned and the action remanded
to the Court of First Instance.
Index


Petition No. 491 of the 24th Judicial Year issued on 28 November 2004
Headnote Arbitration – Defense of arbitration agreement – Jurisdiction
Summary The Respondent instituted an action against the Petitioner before the Abu Dhabi
of facts Federal Court of First Instance, requesting an order that the latter pay AED 154,707
plus interest. The Respondent entered into a construction subcontract with the
Petitioner to perform all the electrical work and install an intercom, central antenna,
phones and fire alarms in a building project. The Petitioner was the principal
contractor. The contract price was AED 490,000, plus AED 44,510 for additional work.
Index
After the Respondent completed all the work that it had been assigned, the Petitioner
failed to pay a series of monthly payments amounting to AED 154,707. This was the
basis upon which the Respondent instituted the action. The contract between the
parties contained an arbitration agreement. The attorney for the Petitioner appeared
before the Court of First Instance at the first hearing. The attorney did not raise a plea
of the existence of the arbitration clause. Instead, the attorney requested time to
submit a reply and to file a power of attorney authorizing his representation of the
Petitioner company.
Later, the Petitioner’s attorney raised the plea that the Court did not have jurisdiction
over the dispute because of the existence of the arbitration clause. The Court of First
Instance dismissed this argument. The Petitioner appealed this judgment before the
Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal, which also dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner
further challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment by way of application to the Court
of Cassation.
Table of contents
Pursuant to Article 203.5 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the parties to a litigation
agreed to arbitrate a dispute, an action may not be instituted before the courts.
However, if either of the parties resorts to the courts and instigates an action
disregarding the arbitration clause, and the other party does not object at the first
session, the action may be tried and the arbitration clause shall be deemed void. The
party insisting on the arbitration clause should object at the first session of the court
and raise the existence of the arbitration agreement. If no objection is made at the
first session, the action may be adjudicated.
The first session means the session where the Respondent or its representative
appears for the first time before the court. If the defence of arbitration is only raised at
a later stage, the court shall consider the party in question to have waived its right to
arbitration, even if it insists on this right.
Judgment There were several facets to the Petitioner’s petition to cassation.
The Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeal had considered that the Petitioner had
waived the plea for the existence of the arbitration clause because its attorney did not
insist upon it during his appearance at the first session, instead simply requesting a
period of time to present the power of attorney and reply to the Claimant’s initial
memorandum. The Petitioner argued that at the first session it is premature to expect
a party’s attorney to be aware of all the affairs of his client, including whether or not
there is an arbitration agreement. As such, the judgment is deemed defective and
must be overturned.

Petition No. 491 of the 24th Judicial Year issued on 28 November 2004
The Court of Cassation dismissed this argument pursuant to Article 203.5 of the Civil
Procedure Code, which provides that if the parties to the litigation agreed to
arbitration in the case of a dispute, an action may not be instituted before the court.
The Court of Cassation held that the party insisting on an arbitration clause should
take a positive position by objecting at the first session. If said party makes no
objection at this session, the action may be adjudicated.
The Court held that the phrase “may be adjudicated” means that the trial of the action
before the Court is permissible and that the arbitration clause becomes void.
Importantly, the first session means the session where the Respondent or its
representative appears for the first time before the Court. The Court of Cassation
Table of contents
found that, if otherwise intended, it would have been expressly stated that the
Respondent is allowed to file a counter-appeal, pursuant to Article 164 of the Civil
Procedure Code.
The Court of Cassation further held that the challenged judgment did not violate this
consideration. Its decision was based upon the appearance of the Petitioner’s attorney
at the first session before the Court of First Instance, when he did not raise an
objection to the Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of the arbitration clause, but instead
requested an adjournment to allow him to formally reply to the Respondent’s initial
memorandum and procure a power of attorney.
The Court of Cassation found that the judgment issued by the Court of Appeal had
correctly taken this into consideration and had correctly held that the Petitioner had
waived its right to arbitration.
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Dismissal of arbitrator
Summary On 29 June 2004, an arbitrator, the Petitioner, was appointed to resolve a dispute
of facts between two parties.
The Petitioner held three preliminary and procedural meetings with the parties to the
arbitration. Following these meetings, the parties agreed to appoint a three-member
arbitration tribunal to resolve the dispute, due to the importance of the dispute as well
as its complex legal and technical aspects. They recorded this agreement in the
Index
minutes of the arbitration session on 18 February 2004, requesting the Petitioner to

submit the matter to the competent court. The Petitioner, however, rejected this
request and ordered the continuation of the arbitration proceedings.
The parties to the arbitration filed a claim against the Petitioner in the Dubai Court of
First Instance. The relief sought was an order : (i) dismissing the Petitioner;
(ii) appointing a three-member arbitration tribunal; and (iii) notifying the Petitioner
that he was dismissed.
On 23 May 2004, the Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner, who
subsequently appealed. The relief sought by the appeal was the reappointment of the
Petitioner as sole arbitrator or, if the Court was minded to convene a three-member
tribunal, the appointment of the Petitioner as one of the three tribunal members.
On 24 October 2004, the Court of Appeal confirmed the Court of First Instance’s
judgment. The Petitioner challenged this judgment.
Table of contents
In accordance with Article 207.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is admissible for the
parties to dismiss an arbitrator by mutual agreement at any time after his
appointment, whether his appointment was made by their agreement or by the court.
In such circumstances, it is not required to prove that the arbitrator has deliberately
failed to act in accordance with the arbitration agreement.
This situation does not change when either litigant institutes an action requesting to
dismiss the arbitrator, as long as it is possible to prove the mutual agreement of the
remaining litigants to do so.
Judgment The Petitioner’s challenge was founded on a number of grounds:
1. The parties’ request for the appointment of a three-member tribunal was
misinterpreted as a request to dismiss the Petitioner.
2. According to those minutes, the parties to the arbitration failed initially to agree on
his dismissal or replacement, but all of them agreed to appoint a three-member
tribunal to resolve the dispute.
3. The Court, in responding to the request to dismiss him, failed to indicate the reason
for doing so, although this request was allegedly pursuant to the will of one of the
parties only and not in conformity with the wishes of all the parties to the
arbitration.
4. The Petitioner’s dismissal, which came about after the delivery of the award, would
no longer be in the hands of the litigants, because under that judgment he had
acquired the capacity and authority of the judge and acted in his place.

Furthermore, the Petitioner alleged that the Court of First Instance had “mixed up” the
requirements of Article 207.3 and Article 207.4 in declaring that he “should be
dismissed without the need for the representation or litigation of the interveners in
the action, before the Court of First Instance”.
Pursuant to Article 207.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, an arbitrator may not be
dismissed unless all parties have consented. However, the court having original
jurisdiction to try the dispute may, at the request of either litigant, dismiss the
arbitrator and order the appointment of a substitute. This may occur in the same way
he was appointed originally in the event that it is proved that the arbitrator
deliberately failed to act in accordance with the arbitration agreement, and this failure
Table of contents
has been brought to the arbitrator’s attention in writing. Accordingly, the arbitrator
may be dismissed whenever all litigants agree to dismiss him after his appointment,
whether his appointment was made by agreement between them or by the court.
This consideration does not change when either litigant institutes an action requesting
the dismissal of the arbitrator, as long as it is possible to prove the mutual agreement
of the remaining litigants to do so. However, if a party to the arbitration single-
handedly requests the dismissal of the arbitrator when there is no agreement between
the litigants to dismiss the arbitrator, then the negligence of the arbitrator must be
proved.
The Petitioner’s contention that the parties did not mutually agree to dismiss him is
inconsistent with the established facts and should be rejected. Furthermore, the
Petitioner’s submission that the parties ought to have proved his negligence has no
basis in law because of the parties’ mutual agreement to dismiss him.
The Petitioner’s argument that the Court had “mixed” Article 207.3 and Article 207.4,
which deal with dismissal and recusal respectively, was incorrect and irrelevant,
because the facts demonstrated that the parties agreed to dismiss the arbitrator.
Even if an arbitrator is appointed pursuant to Article 204.2 of the Civil Procedure

Code, this may not preclude the parties from mutually agreeing to dismiss the
Index
arbitrator, which is permitted by Article 207.3 of the Civil Procedure Code.


Petition No. 51 of 2005 issued on 28 May 2005
Headnote Arbitration – Capacity to agree to arbitration
Summary On 9 December 2000, the Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Respondent
of facts for the Petitioner to design, execute and complete a factory and offices for the
Respondent in Sharjah (the “contract”). Under the contract, any dispute was to be
referred to arbitration. The Petitioner failed to fulfil its obligations, and the dispute was
referred to arbitration. Three arbitrators were appointed, and the tribunal issued its
award on 4 October 2003. The Respondent brought an action before the Dubai First
Index
Court of Instance to request the ratification and execution of the award. On 18 January
2004, the Petitioner filed an incidental claim requesting the nullification of the award.
On 16 May 2004, the Court ruled to accept the Respondent’s claim and to ratify the
arbitrators’ award issued on 4 October 2003. The Petitioner appealed this judgment,
and on 30 November 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the appealed judgment. The
Petitioner subsequently challenged this judgment for breach and misapplication of
the law, alleging that the Court had wrongly dismissed his defence, which argued that
the arbitration agreement should be nullified on the grounds that it had been signed
by the manager of the company, who was not authorized to agree to arbitration and
so did not have the requisite capacity to sign the arbitration agreement.
As per Article 216(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the capacity required for the valid
signature of the arbitration agreement is the authority to act in respect of those rights.
The manager of an establishment is an agent of its owner in performing all the acts
Table of contents
required for the management of the establishment. However, the manager is not
entitled to act in respect of the establishment’s rights without an authorization from
the owner of the establishment that removes any doubt about the owner’s intention.
Judgment The documents establish that the contract and the arbitration agreement were signed
by the manager of the Respondent. The Respondent’s establishment licence states
that it is an individual establishment and that the relevant signatory of the arbitration
agreement is its manager. The authorization issued to the relevant manager by the
owner of the company states that the relevant manager is authorized to sign official
and semi-official documents relating to the municipalities in the UAE, as well as
contracts with companies and individuals.
The challenged judgment concluded that the manager was authorized by the owner
of the company to manage the establishment and had absolute powers to do so,
including the power to sign the arbitration agreement without the need for special
authorization from the owner of the company. In fact, such authorization was required.
As it had not been granted, the challenged judgment was wrongly decided. It
misapplied the law, involved an incorrect inference and should therefore be
overturned.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was overturned.


Headnote Arbitration – Immunity of arbitrators – Res judicata – Scope of the arbitration deed
Summary The Petitioner entered into an arbitration agreement with the First Respondent on 9
of facts December 2003 to resolve a dispute relating to a sub-contract dated 5 August 1999
(the “Sub-Contract”). The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents were appointed as
arbitrators (the “Tribunal”). It was agreed that an attachment on a relevant bank
guarantee, valued at AED 3,600,000 and issued by the Second Respondent, would be
lifted. It was agreed that the bank guarantee would be renewed as long as the
Table of contents
arbitration continued but that the Petitioner would not obtain the benefit of the bank
guarantee until the end of the arbitration. Although the Second Respondent did not
submit the renewed guarantee, the arbitration panel decided that the two parties had
the right to resort to the competent entity regarding the bank guarantee.
Accordingly, the Petitioner sent a notice to the tribunal and the First Respondent
requesting the renewal of the bank guarantee and asked the tribunal to stop the
arbitration proceedings. The tribunal postponed the arbitration until the hearing on 6
June 2004. The Petitioner brought an action before the Dubai Court of First Instance
against the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents, requesting the
suspension of the arbitration proceedings until the First Respondent had paid the
bank guarantee. The Petitioner argued that this should be a prerequisite for the
continuation of the arbitration.
The Petitioner requested the Dubai Court of First Instance:

1. to nullify the arbitration award rendered on 13 July 2004 (the suspension on the
bank guarantee was lifted after 6 June 2004);
2. to bind the First and Second Respondents jointly and severally to hand over the
renewed bank guarantee;
3. to bind the tribunal jointly to pay AED 75,000 for: (i) non-compliance with Article
Index
209 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the guarantee constituted a guarantee of the
Petitioner’s rights; and (ii) violation of the rights of the Petitioner to a defence and
to be heard. The Petitioner also alleged that the Tribunal had increased its fees to
AED 250,000 and asked the parties to bear the fees equally. However, the First
Respondent had paid the whole sum, and as a result the arbitrators were biased in
favour of the First Respondent and did not propose reconciliation between the
parties.
The First Respondent also brought an action requesting that the arbitration award be
returned to the tribunal to render a supplementary award binding on the Petitioner
and specifying that:
1. the original copy of the bank guarantee provided for in the arbitration deed plus
the original copies of the renewal appendices be returned to the First Respondent;
2. the guarantee be considered void ab initio;
3. the arbitration award rendered on 13 July 2004 be ratified;
4. the award should be unchallengeable based on Article 217.3 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
The Court joined the two actions together and on 8 December 2004 dismissed the
Petitioner’s action and ratified the arbitration award rendered in favour of the
Respondents on 13 July 2004.

The Petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment, which the Court dismissed on 2
March 2005, affirming the challenged judgment. The Petitioner then filed this petition
to cassation.
An arbitrator does not enjoy the immunity and guarantees afforded to a judge and
may be litigated against for his faults. An action may also be instituted under Article
218 of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to the arbitration fees and expenses
estimated by the arbitrator, where the Court can use its authority to modify the fees in
line with the effort exerted and the nature of the dispute.
Index
Where an arbitrator who participated in the deliberation of an award cannot be

present at the reciting of the award for personal reasons, the arbitrator can sign the
draft award and this signature is then attested to in the hearing minutes. The award is
not required to mention the reason for the arbitrator’s absence from the hearing to
issue the award. The law does not require the signature of the chairman on the
original award.
An arbitral award acquires the evidential status of a judged matter (res judicata)
immediately after it is rendered, although the application of this is subject to
ratification. In the case of ratification, no litigant may resort to the judiciary. However,
an action can be instituted to nullify an award if the requirements of nullification are
present.
A legal pleading that involves facts that were not presented to the trial court cannot
be made for the first time before the Court of Cassation.
Table of contents
When it ratifies an arbitration award, the court has absolute authority to decide
whether the arbitrators have exceeded the limits in the arbitration deed without being
subject to the control of the Court of Cassation, provided that the decision of the
court has not ignored the provisions of the arbitration clauses. When ratifying an
award, the court must not assess the substantive aspects of the award, as this falls
within the remit of the tribunal. It is sufficient that the award includes a copy of the
arbitration agreement, a summary of the litigants’ pleadings, documents and reasons
provided that the award does not violate a public order rule. This includes the
procedures of the arbitration, including those set out in the Civil Procedure Code, the
Civil Transactions Law and any independent law.
Judgment The pleading of the tribunal is based on the fact that the arbitration panel shall not be
litigated against in the case of the nullification of the award rendered by the tribunal
and that the fees paid to the tribunal were estimated according to the effort exerted.
An action may be instituted under Article 218 of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to
the arbitration fees and expenses estimated by the arbitrator, where the court can use
its authority to modify the fees in line with the effort exerted and the nature of the
dispute. However, in this case, the Petitioner had not filed his challenge against the
arbitrators’ fees but rather for the nullification of the award for other reasons.
The challenge for cassation as to the First and Second Respondents has been filed
within the legal term and fulfils all formal requirements.

The challenge is based on four reasons, the first of which being that the challenged
judgment involved a violation and misapplication of the law, an incorrect inference,
deficiency in reasoning, inconsistency with the facts proven by the documents and
prejudice to the rights of defence due to a violation of Articles 129 and 131 of the Civil
Procedure Code, as the award did not mention why the chief arbitrator had not
signed it. The draft award and the original of the award were not signed by the chief
justice and the clerk, as required, so the award shall be null and void and should be
reversed.
The Petitioner’s first argument was inadmissible. Article 128.4 of the Civil Procedure
Code provides that “[a]ll judges participating in the deliberation shall be present at
Table of contents
the reciting of the award. In cases where one of them cannot be present for personal
reasons, they shall sign the draft award, provided that this signature shall be recorded
in the hearing minutes.” This indicates that the award is not required to mention the
reason for the arbitrator’s absence from the hearing in order to issue the award. In this
case, it was established by the challenged judgment that the award had been
rendered by the tribunal that signed the draft award, namely the chairman and the
two arbitrators. The law does not require the signature of the chairman on the original
award, and the challenge is accordingly dismissed.
In the second argument, the Petitioner argued that the challenged judgment involved
a violation and misapplication of the law and an incorrect inference, as it was judged
that the award rendered by the tribunal had acquired the evidential status of a judged
matter (res judicata) immediately after being rendered. It therefore prevented the
litigants from resubmitting their dispute to the judiciary, even in a case where a
judgment to nullify the award had been passed. The principle set out by the tribunal
violated Article 217.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the submission of
challenges against judgments to ratify arbitral awards by litigation.
The Petitioner’s second argument was inadmissible, as the judgment correctly

decided that an arbitral award acquires the evidential status of a judged matter (res
judicata) immediately after it is rendered, although the application of the judgment is
Index
subject to ratification. Once an award ratified, no litigant may resort to the judiciary.
However, an action can be instituted to nullify an award if the requirements of
nullification are present, as they were in this case. Accordingly, the challenged
judgment did not constitute a violation of the law or a misapplication thereof.
In the third argument, the Petitioner argued that the challenged judgment involved a
violation and misapplication of the law, an incorrect inference and a deficiency in
reasoning, as the cases in which nullification of an award can be requested include
cases where the arbitration request is issued by a person who lacks the capacity to
agree to arbitration. In this case, two men had signed the arbitration deed on behalf of
the Petitioner in the original claim, despite the fact that the Petitioner company’s
manager could not use the rights of selling, donation or resorting to arbitration
without special authorization. The arbitration deed had been issued by a manager
without the capacity to agree to the arbitration, which nullified the arbitration award.
The Petitioner’s third argument was inadmissible, as a legal pleading involving facts
that were not presented to the trial court cannot be made for the first time before the
Court of Cassation. Since the matter of the incapacity of those who agreed to the
arbitration had not been raised before the trial court, these facts could not be
presented for the first time before the Court of Cassation.
In the fourth argument, the Petitioner argued that the challenged judgment
constituted a violation of the law, as the pleading that the arbitrators had exceeded
the limits of the arbitration deed had not been rebutted.

The Petitioner’s fourth argument was inadmissible. When ratifying an arbitration

award, the trial court has absolute authority to decide whether the arbitrators have
exceeded the limits in the arbitration deed, provided that the decision of the trial court
has not ignored the provisions of the arbitration clauses. When ratifying an award, the
trial court must not assess the substantive aspects of the award, as this falls within the
remit of the tribunal. It is sufficient that the award includes a copy of the arbitration
agreement and a summary of the litigants’ pleadings, documents and reasons,
provided that the award does not violate a public order rule. This includes the
procedures of the arbitration, including those set out in the Civil Procedure Code, the
Civil Transactions Law and any independent law.
Index

Table of contents

Petition No. 556 of the 24th Judicial Year issued on 19 April 2005

Petition No. 556 of the 24th Judicial Year issued on 19 April 2005
Headnote Arbitration – Attendance of arbitrators at hearings – Deliberation of arbitrators
Summary A three-member arbitral tribunal was established to determine a dispute between the
of facts parties. The Respondent’s nominated arbitrator failed to attend a hearing held during
the course of the arbitration proceedings as he was outside the UAE. The hearing was
consequently convened and held in front of the two remaining arbitral tribunal
members. The final award was issued on 17 June 2000. By that time, the Respondent’s
nominated arbitrator had still not returned to the UAE. However, he had managed to
Table of contents
sign a portion of the final award, not every page, with his signature being evidenced
by a notary public in San Francisco, California. He had not signed the pages with the
reasoning and ultimate relief ordered, but the other two arbitral tribunal members had
affixed their signatures to those pages.
The Court was required to determine whether the failure of one of the arbitrators to
sign every page of the award formed a ground for invalidating the final award.
Held The Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned.
The Court may not review the merits of the arbitral award. However, the Court may
review the validity of the procedure.
The deliberation of a panel of arbitrators shall only be valid if made in confidence and
in the presence of all arbitrators.
Only arbitrators who have heard the pleading may participate in the deliberation;
otherwise the award shall be null and void.
Judgment It is established that the Court, while considering the ratification of an award, may
neither discuss the subject matter of the award nor examine its compliance with
the law.
Index
Articles 212 and 216 of the Civil Procedure Code imply that, although arbitration is
conducted at the will of the litigants, as confirmed by the lawmaker, and designed to
avoid lengthy litigation procedures before courts, the arbitrator shall abide by the
basic litigation procedures prescribed in the arbitration chapter of the Civil Procedure
Code. This includes procedures relating to summons of litigants, hearing their
respective defences and allowing them to present documents, unless the litigants
have agreed on certain rules by which the arbitration process is to be governed. The
award given by the arbitrator shall be in accordance with the applicable legal rules. If
such rules are related to conciliation, the arbitrator shall abide only by the rules
relating to public order. For instance, the deliberation shall only be valid if made in
confidence and in the presence of all arbitrators in accordance with Article 128.1 of the
Code, because the award is attributed to the entire arbitration panel, whether it is
given unanimously or by majority. Only arbitrators who have heard the pleading may
participate in the deliberation; otherwise the award shall be null and void.
The award shall be deemed to have been issued on the date on which it was signed
by the arbitrators. Consequently, if any of the arbitrators who have heard the pleading
change for any reason, such as transfer, death and so forth, the pleading shall be held
again and all procedures shall be repeated before the new panel. The Court of Appeal
therefore misapplied the law.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is overturned.


Petition No. 206 of the 27th Judicial Year issued on 27 December 2005
Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – ADCCAC rules
Summary The Petitioner and the First Respondent had agreed in a memorandum of
of facts understanding to liquidate their company and its subsidiaries and to resolve the
disputes between them by arbitration, pursuant to the procedural regulations of the
Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Center (ADCCAC), which is the
Second Respondent in this action.
As the parties to the arbitration had a disagreement in respect of the liquidation, the
Index
Petitioner filed an arbitration and requested that each party designate one arbitrator.
Thereafter, the ADCCAC requested those arbitrators to designate a chairman. When
they failed to do so, the ADCCAC immediately submitted the issue of the
appointment of the third arbitrator to an independent third body. This was not in
compliance with the procedures laid down in the arbitration agreement or the
ADCCAC Rules. Of particular concern was that the process adopted by the ADCCAC
did not allow the parties to object to the identity of the chairman.
On that basis, the First Respondent brought an action against the Petitioner and the
Second Respondent, requesting, among other things, that the third arbitrator be
appointed by the Higher Judicial Council. The Court of First Instance dismissed the
action. The First Respondent appealed before the Court of Appeal, which cancelled
the appointment of the third arbitrator by the ADCCAC and referred the matter of the
appointment of the third arbitrator to the Ministry of Justice.
Table of contents
Pursuant to Articles 203 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court of original
jurisdiction may appoint one or more arbitrators at the request of either litigant in the
event that the litigants fail to agree on the appointment of said arbitrators. The court’s
decision is not subject to appeal.
The failure of the institution to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the relevant
procedures gives either party the right to resort to the court of original jurisdiction to
request the appointment of the arbitrator.
Judgment Pursuant to Articles 203 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the parties have
agreed to arbitration in respect of a dispute arising between them in the performance
of a contract concluded between them and they fail to agree on the arbitrators or one
or more of the agreed arbitrators abstains from working, resigns, is dismissed, is
removed by judgment or is otherwise prevented from working, the court originally
competent to try the dispute subject matter shall, upon the request of either party to
litigation, appoint the required arbitrators. The decision of the court in this regard is
not subject to challenge. Referring to Article 12 of the ADCCAC Arbitration and
Conciliation Rules, the Court of Cassation held that the appointment by the ADCCAC
of the third arbitrator failed to comply with that article, since it was made without the
required consultation of the parties.
Accordingly, the challenged judgment annulling the ADCCAC decision appointing the
third arbitrator was appropriate. Either party therefore had the right to resort to the
court of the original jurisdiction to request the appointment of the third arbitrator.


Headnote Arbitration – Public order – Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a subcontracting agreement that
of facts contained an arbitration clause. Following a dispute that arose between the parties,
arbitration proceedings were initiated. The parties agreed on the terms of reference
on 5 October 2002. The arbitration tribunal issued its first award on 31 March 2004,
after the period was extended by mutual consent, awarding compensation to the
Respondent in the sum of AED 4,726,255.41. As the award did not rule on certain
Table of contents
points raised by the terms of reference, the Respondent filed a second claim to settle
these points. On 14 June 2004, the arbitration tribunal issued its award on these
points, obliging the Petitioner to pay the Respondent the further sum of AED
511,937.42 as well as the arbitration fees. The Respondent then instituted an action
before the Dubai Court of First Instance to ratify the tribunal’s awards.
The Petitioner then instituted a counterclaim to nullify the tribunal’s awards for
procedural failures, including invalidity of the terms of reference due to the expiry of
the relevant time period for issuing the award, a failure to hold the arbitration sessions,
a failure to issue the minutes, the lack of a quorum in the arbitration tribunal and the
issuance of the award in English. The Court of First Instance ruled to suspend the
action to nullify the awards until the Petitioner’s motion recusing the chair of the
arbitration tribunal had been settled. The Respondent filed an appeal. On 21 March
2005, the Court ruled to support the appealed judgment. Following the unsuccessful
appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition to cassation. On 17 October 2005, the Court of
Cassation ruled to overturn the judgment and to refer it back to the Court of Appeal
for rehearing. Following the rehearing, the Court of Appeal ruled to ratify the tribunal’s
awards issued on 31 March 2004 and 14 June 2004 and to dismiss the Petitioner’s
counterclaim requesting nullification of the awards.
The Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the grounds of mis
Index
application of the law and failure to consider the points that the Petitioner had raised.
Held The Court of Appeal's judgment was overturned.
Under Articles 210.1 and 216(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, the arbitration period is
left to the consent of the parties. The parties may therefore count it in months or in
days. If the period originally agreed upon is counted in days, any extensions shall also
be counted in days. If the period originally agreed upon is counted in months, any
extensions shall also be counted in months.
The arbitrator must issue his award within the period agreed between the parties. If
the parties fail to reach agreement on such a period, the arbitrator must issue his
award within six months of the first session.
The agreement of the parties on a set period within which the arbitrator must issue
his award does not prevent the arbitrator’s express or implicit agreement to any
extensions or the parties’ ability to authorize the arbitrator to extend the period. The
court may also extend the period for such time as it deems necessary for the
settlement of the dispute, if so required by either party or the arbitrator.
The period by which the arbitration is extended, whether by agreement between the
parties, authorization of the arbitrator or court judgment, must be connected to the
previous period.

The arbitration period shall be deemed to have been uninterrupted if the arbitration
parties or their representatives continue to appear before the arbitrator and neither
party insists on the invalidity of the terms of reference for exceeding the date set.
Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that public order does not apply to
the invalidity of the terms of reference through the expiry of the date set for the
issuance of the award. Therefore, the court may not invoke the invalidity of an award
on its own initiative. Rather, the interested party must expressly insist on the court
invoking invalidity when making its request for ratification or nullification of the
arbitrator’s award before the court.
The parties’ agreement on the term of the arbitration or any extension thereof is
Index
within the discretionary power of the trial court, provided that such court bases its
judgment on valid grounds supported by the case papers.
Judgment The terms of reference stated that the arbitration tribunal should issue its award
within six months (180 days) of the date of signature of the terms of reference by the
parties. The terms of reference stated that the arbitration tribunal could extend this
period by a further six months (180 days). Any extension thereafter would have to be
agreed by the parties. The 180-day period in the term “six months” was deemed to
mean that the parties had agreed that a month meant 30 days.
The parties had agreed, in the terms of reference, that the original arbitration period
would last for six months. This was twice extended by mutual consent of the parties,
on both occasions for a further period of six months. The first period of 180 days
commenced on 5 October 2002 and ended on 2 April 2003, the second period
commenced on 3 April 2003 and ended on 29 September 2003 and the third and
Table of contents
final period commenced on 30 September 2003 and ended on 27 March 2004. The
arbitration tribunal issued its award on 31 March 2004, which was after the expiry of
the arbitration period.
In a letter to the chairman of the tribunal dated 22 September 2003 (before the expiry
of the arbitration period), the Petitioner opposed the continuance of the arbitration.
The Petitioner insisted in its defence that the arbitration award should be nullified, due
to the expiry of the time limit to render the award. Since the challenged judgment had
been the one that ratified the awards, it should be overturned and the awards granted
under it should be nullified.


Headnote Arbitration – Power of attorney – Capacity to agree to arbitration – Power of attorney

– Representation of parties
Summary A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the construction of a villa. The
of facts Petitioner filed an action in court against the Respondent, requesting payment of AED
9,282,134. The Respondent sought to deny the jurisdiction of the court on the basis of
an arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. The court accepted the
Respondent’s position and the Petitioner amended his case to constitute an
Table of contents
application for the appointment of an arbitrator. The Court appointed an arbitrator,
who on 7 December 2005 issued his award.
The Petitioner initiated an action before the Court of First Instance requesting the
annulment of the arbitration award. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request
following which the Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeal. The Court of
Appeal confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Petitioner filed a
petition to cassation.
There is no need for a special power of attorney for the representative of a party to
agree to refer the dispute to arbitration when the parties have already agreed in their
contract to resort to arbitration.
When the arbitration is not administered by the court, the arbitrator does not need to
file the award with the court. However, the arbitrator must send a copy of the award
to the parties within five days of the award being rendered. Each party may then
apply separately for ratification or nullification of the award.
While ratifying the arbitration award, the court may neither consider the merits of the
case nor determine the extent to which it complies with the law.
Index
Judgment According to the provisions of Article 203.4 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as
what is established in the adjudication of this Court, the agreement to resort to
arbitration may only be made by the party having capacity to dispose of the disputed
right and not by those who have the capacity to resort to litigation. This is because
the arbitration agreement implies a waiver of the right to file a lawsuit before the
courts of the state, including all guarantees prescribed for litigants. Nonetheless, the
attorney’s capacity could be explicit, implicit or apparent. Authorization shall be
deemed explicit if it is provided verbally or in writing, while the same shall be deemed
implicit if it is implied by the status quo, verbal or written agreements and ordinary
business practice. Hence, even if the full power of attorney conferred upon the lawyer
by the principal to file lawsuits before courts of law does not authorize that lawyer to
take the initiative to agree directly to arbitration, the litigant authorizing the lawyer
may not argue that there is no special power of attorney conferred upon the lawyer to
agree specifically to arbitration as long as there is an implied authorization, which can
be deduced from the status quo as well as all documents presented in the pending
action, that the lawyer acted within the limits of the said authorization, for example if
he initially filed an action on behalf of his principal before the courts of law and then
agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration based on the arbitration clause concluded
between the principal and the other litigant, who also agreed to arbitration.
A lawyer who is authorized to plead on behalf of his principal in an action filed by or

against said principal in litigation does not need a special power of attorney from the
principal to approve – during the course of the court’s consideration of the case – the

referral of the case to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause included in
the contract concluded between the principal and the other litigant. Such approval is
deemed to fall within the limits of the authorization conferred upon the lawyer and to
constitute an essential procedure that the lawyer is authorized to undertake during his
pleading on behalf of the principal.
It is established in the adjudication of this Court that Article 213 of the Civil Procedure
Code stipulates that arbitration may be conducted through the court or otherwise
without the court’s interference as in the case of ad hoc and institutional arbitration.
Arbitration through the court is conducted at the court’s decision and upon the
agreement of the litigants when the dispute is being considered by the court. In this
Index
case, the procedures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said article shall be
applicable.
Whereas Article 203.3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the “The litigation’s
facts should be designated in the arbitration document or during the examination of
the action even if the arbitrators were authorized for reconciliation, otherwise the
arbitration shall be void.”, Article 213 provides:
1. In case of the arbitration proceeded through the court, the arbitrators should
deposit the decision with the original of the arbitration record, the reports and the
documents in the clerk’s office of the court authorized principally to examine the
action, and that shall be within the fifteen days following the decision’s delivery
and they should deposit a copy of the decision in the clerk’s office of the court to
deliver them to each party side and that within fifteen days from depositing the
original and the clerk’s office of the court shall compile a report with that deposit
to manifest it to the judge or the division manager, according to the circumstances,
Table of contents
in order to appoint a session within fifteen days to authenticate the decision and
the two parties shall be notified therewith.
2. If the arbitration were incoming in an appellate case the deposit shall be in the
clerk’s office of the court authorized principally to examine the appeal.
3. As for the arbitration which takes place between the litigant parties outside the
court, the arbitrators should deliver a copy of the decision to each party within five
days from the delivery of the arbitration decision and the court shall examine the
authentication or the nullity of the decision according to the request of one of the
litigant parties through the usual procedures of the action prosecution..
These provisions show that there are different procedures for submitting the award to
the courts for ratification. Awards rendered in arbitration held through the court have
different procedures from awards rendered in ad hoc and institutional arbitration.
Furthermore, the control of the court over an arbitration held through the court is
different from the control it exercises over an ad hoc or institutional arbitration. An
award rendered in an arbitration held through the court is subject to the oversight and
control of the court during all phases of arbitration. In this type of arbitration, the
court refers the pending dispute to arbitration by virtue of the arbitration document
presented to it and, where applicable, determines the subject matter of the arbitration
during the consideration of the case pursuant to Article 203.3. Thus, the court is
acquainted with the subject matter of the arbitration either through the arbitration
document enclosed with the papers of the case or during the arbitral procedure when
the matter is referred to arbitrators. Hence, the award may not be nullified in the
aforementioned case, even if the arbitrators fail to refer to the arbitration document in
the case of ad hoc and institutional arbitration. Rather, it is sufficient in this case to
enclose the original of the arbitration document with other documents submitted to
the court that referred the dispute to arbitration. This court will then exercise its
supervisory and control competence over the award by ratifying or remanding the
award in accordance with Article 214 of the Code. The award is remanded by the court

if the arbitrators leave a certain point of the dispute unresolved or if the award is too
vague, ambiguous or unspecific to be executed. The court also has competence to
amend and correct the award if the arbitrators decide on a matter not included in the
arbitration, and the court may exclude such matters without affecting the remaining
matters referred to arbitration. The court may also rectify the award if it contains
material misprints or miscalculations in accordance with Article 215 of the Code.
It is established in the adjudication of this Court that the court, when ratifying the
arbitration award, may neither consider the merits of the case nor determine the
extent to which it complies with the law. In addition, every argument raised by any of
the litigants against the award with respect to the arbitrator’s determination of the
Table of contents
dispute, the evidence presented therein or the invalidity or inadequacy of the grounds
for the award shall be inadmissible. Although the award must be based on valid
grounds, it is exempted from the causation requirements applicable with respect to
judicial judgments as long as the award does not contradict with a rule relating to
public order, because arbitrators are not necessarily legal professionals. This
exemption also applies to evidentiary procedures, whether mentioned in the Civil
Procedure Code, the Civil Transactions Law or any other independent law.
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – Grounds for annulment of award
Summary Two commercial companies entered into an agreement to form a company to

of facts produce wood shavings and supply them to horse stables and to divide the resulting
profits. The original agreement contained an arbitration clause authorizing an
arbitrator to settle any disputes between the parties and to issue awards. However,
the arbitration agreement did not state the number of arbitrators required nor did it
set out the manner of their appointment.
Index
The Respondent filed a case before the Court of First Instance requesting the
appointment of arbitrators to resolve a dispute that had arisen with the Petitioner. The
Court of First Instance ordered the appointment of an accounting expert to act as
arbitrator (the “expert”) to resolve the dispute between both parties, pursuant to the
terms of the arbitration clause.
During the course of the trial, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement
stipulating the parties’ approval for the appointment of the expert as an arbitrator to
resolve the dispute that had arisen between them.
The arbitrator delivered his decision, concluding that the Respondent was entitled to
damages from the Petitioner. The Court of First Instance ordered the enforcement of
the arbitrator’s award. The Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal, which rejected
the appeal. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.
The Court of Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and returned the
Table of contents
action to the Court of Appeal to pass a new judgment, as the arbitration clause
empowered the arbitrator to reconcile but did not clearly empower him to unilaterally
reconcile between the parties without their approval.
Once again, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of
the Court of First Instance. The Petitioner then challenged the second Court of
Appeal’s decision before the Court of Cassation.
Held The Petition to cassation was dismissed.
Under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Code, the parties to a contract may in general
agree in the main contract or in a subsequent agreement to refer disputes arising
between them to one or more arbitrators.
The courts cannot address the merits of an arbitration award when they are asked to
ratify or enforce said award, provided that the arbitrator’s award does not contradict a
rule relating to public order.
Judgment The Petitioner first argues that the appointment of the expert by the Court of First
Instance was carried out against the provisions of the law, because the Respondent
had only requested the appointment of an accounting expert to settle the accounts
between both parties. Since the Court of First Instance accepted the plea made by
the Petitioner to stay the proceedings on the grounds of the existence of the
arbitration clause, it should not have appointed the arbitrator.
The Court states that it is established as per Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Code
that the parties to a contract may in general stipulate in the main contract or in a
subsequent agreement to refer disputes arising between them from the performance
of a certain contract to one or more arbitrators and the parties may agree to
arbitration in a certain dispute under special conditions. The subject matter of the
dispute must be defined in the arbitration document or during the hearing of the

action, i.e., the litigants may lay down a condition in the original contract concluded
between them on the submission to arbitration of any dispute that arises between
them in respect of the performance of said contract. Furthermore, they may conclude
an arbitration agreement in respect of a certain dispute under special conditions and
assign the arbitration to a specific person or persons to be agreed upon. If there is a
dispute and the parties to the litigation have not agreed on the arbitrators, any one of
them may turn to the original court of jurisdiction to hear the dispute to appoint the
arbitrators required, pursuant to Article 204 of the Code.
The documents disclosed to the Court demonstrate that the original contract
concluded between the two parties on 5 August 2002 contained an arbitration clause
Table of contents
that did not assign a specific number of arbitrators or set out the manner of their
appointment. Upon the precautionary request made by the Respondent to appoint
the arbitrators, the Court of First Instance therefore ordered the appointment of the
expert. Subsequently, both parties to the dispute entered into an independent
arbitration agreement in which they agreed to the appointment of the expert. The
document in question provided the approval of the parties to his appointment as an
arbitrator. It also detailed the proceedings that said arbitrator was required to adhere
to and both parties’ agreement on the expert’s fees. Hence, this document is deemed
to be an independent arbitration agreement in which both parties chose the expert as
the sole arbitrator. This document is not disputed by the parties to the litigation and is
deemed to be a sufficient base, without violation of the law, to appoint the
aforementioned expert as an arbitrator to resolve the existing dispute between them
without needing to examine whether or not the Court of First Instance was vested
with the power to appoint a sole arbitrator to settle the dispute.
Thus, claiming the above with respect to the challenged judgment is useless in respect
of the Petitioner’s allegation regarding the invalidity of the arbitrator’s decision, which
maintains that it was delivered by a sole arbitrator who was not appointed by the
court in accordance with the law, pursuant to Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code.
This does not change the fact that the court whose judgment is challenged rejected
the claim of invalidity based on the original agreement dated 5 August 2002 in which
Index
the arbitration clause is provided due to the failure of that agreement to define a
certain number of arbitrators. Since the judgment reached the correct conclusion by
rejecting the claim regarding the invalidity of the arbitrator’s award, its failure to set
out its legal reasons or cite the correct legal references shall not render it defective, as
the Court of Cassation may supplement the missing reasons that the judgment failed
to set out and return it to a correct legal footing without needing to reverse it.
The Petitioner further argues that the arbitrator should have asked the Court to order
a third party to disclose a pivotal document in its possession pursuant to Article 209
of the Civil Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that the arbitrator’s
decision provides that the Respondent had received only AED 80,016 from the
Petitioner although it had actually received more than AED 600,000. The Petitioner
states that the Respondent did not deny having received AED 600,000, which verifies
the invalidity of the assessment adopted by the arbitrator and the Court of Appeal’s
disregard for the significance of the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support
of its defence.
The Court of Cassation rules that it is established in the rulings of this Court that,
when endorsing an arbitral award, the court may not address said award from a
substantive perspective or from the perspective of its compliance with the law,
because the court cannot review the merits of the award unless it breaches a rule
relating to public order.


Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent agreed to refer their dispute concerning a
of facts factory’s capital to arbitration under the Rules of Commercial Conciliation and
Arbitration of the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the “Rules”). An
arbitrator was appointed to act as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator issued his award on 14
February 2006. The Petitioner subsequently brought an action requesting the
ratification and execution of the award.
Index
On 20 May 2006, the Respondent requested the annulment of the award for breach
of law. The Respondent argued that he had requested the dismissal of the arbitrator
but that the arbitrator had issued his award on 14 May 2006 before the final
settlement of Action No. 733 of 2005 (which related to his recusal) and its Appeal No.
194 of 2006. This, the Respondent argued, rendered the award invalid under Article
216 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court of First Instance agreed and on 23 August
2006 dismissed the Petitioner’s ratification claim and ruled that the award was invalid.
The Petitioner appealed against this judgment. On 17 January 2007, the Court of
Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the appealed judgment on the ground that
the arbitrator had proceeded with the arbitration proceedings and had issued his
award despite the fact that a motion had been filed to recuse him. This constituted a
ground to invalidate the award under Article 39 of the Rules and Article 216 of the
Civil Procedure Code.
Table of contents
On 7 March 2007, the Petitioner challenged the judgment of 17 January 2007,

requesting that the judgment be overturned. Among other things, the Petitioner
argued:
1. The suspension of proceedings is not obligatory in a recusal motion. The arbitrator
has the power to assess the seriousness of the dispute without being subject to
the control of the Court of Cassation. The arbitrator may proceed with the
arbitration if he deems that the purpose behind the application for his recusal is to
prolong the litigation.
2. The judgment mistakenly decided that Article 39 of the Rules covered the
provisions of Article 120 of the Civil Procedure Code. The explanatory
memorandum states that Article 120 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to the
incompetence and recusal of judges but not to the recusal of arbitrators.
3. The recusal motion was submitted after the expiry of the five-day period, and the
right to recuse had therefore been forfeited.
The law does not allow the arbitrator to proceed with the proceedings while the
motion to recuse the arbitrator is pending, even if the allegations raised are incorrect,
as the arbitrator does not have the power to decide upon the seriousness of the
motion.

Judgment Article 216.1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that litigants can request the
annulment of an arbitration award when submitted to the Court for ratification if there
was a procedural fault in the arbitration.
Article 39 of the Rules provides that arbitration proceedings must be suspended if

there is a legal or actual impediment that prevents their continuance in any of the
cases listed in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 39 until such
impediment is removed. However, Article 39 is not limited to such cases. Other legal
texts and general rules may be referred to in order to verify whether there is a legal
impediment to the continuance of proceedings. A recusal motion is one of the cases
that results in the suspension of proceedings until the concerned authority issues its
Table of contents
decision in relation to the recusal motion. The law does not allow the arbitrator to
proceed with the action while the motion to recuse the arbitrator is pending. The
arbitrator must not insist on proceeding with the arbitration, even if the allegations
raised are incorrect, as the arbitrator does not have the power to decide upon the
seriousness of the motion. The verification of whether the recusal motion is being
used as a method to prolong the litigation is not relevant. Arbitral proceedings must
be suspended until the recusal motion is settled, regardless of whether the recusal
motion is a method of prolonging the litigation. If the arbitrator insists on proceeding
with the action despite being aware of the recusal motion, the procedures initiated by
him will be invalid under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finally, the arbitrator has an obligation to suspend proceedings until a judgment

dismissing the recusal motion is issued, even if the recusal motion is submitted after
the expiry of the relevant period for issuing an award.
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – Jurisdiction
Summary The Petitioner was ordered by a contractor, the Respondent, to construct three
of facts buildings on a plot of land in Al Bateen for an agreed sum. The contract between the
parties contained an arbitration clause. Since the Respondent refused payment on a
number of grounds, the Petitioner initiated a procedure before the Dubai Court of
First Instance to order the Respondent to settle payment or to appoint an arbitrator
to resolve the dispute under Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court
Index
decided that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the substance of the dispute
because of the existence of the arbitration clause and appointed an arbitrator to settle
the dispute. The Respondent appealed the appointment of the arbitrator claiming that
the parties had agreed on a different arbitrator in their agreement. The appeal was
denied. The Respondent then appealed before the Court of Cassation, where the
judgment was overruled and the case was transferred back to the Court of Appeal to
reconsider its decision on the basis that the arbitrator was not appointed in the
manner set out in the agreement between the parties. The parties then agreed on the
appointment of the arbitrator originally appointed by the Court of First Instance. The
arbitration was duly held and resulted in an award. The Court of Appeal ratified the
arbitrator’s award. The Petitioner challenged the ratification before the Court of
Cassation on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not have the power to ratify the
award.
Table of contents
Pursuant to Articles 204 and 213.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court that has
jurisdiction over the substance of the dispute that was settled by arbitration and
which is determined according to the international rules of jurisdiction set forth in
Chapter I of Book I of the Civil Procedure Code shall be competent to appoint
arbitrators and ratify awards rendered by arbitrators. The principle is that the Court of
First Instance has jurisdiction in this respect, irrespective of whether it was deciding in
full chambers or whether the issue of the appointment of arbitrators was raised before
it or resulted from a claim regarding the non-jurisdiction of the Court because of the
existence of an arbitration clause. The exception to this principle is that the Court of
Appeal has jurisdiction over the appointment of arbitrators and the ratification of their
awards in cases where the Court of First Instance has passed judgment on the subject
matter of dispute and the appeal before the Court of Appeal pleads for the existence
of an arbitration clause.

Judgment The Petitioner argues that the challenged judgment should be overruled. After the
objection and transfer, the task of the Court of Appeal is restricted to determining
whether or not the judgment may be appealed. If the Court decides that the
judgment can be appealed and appoints the same arbitrator assigned by the Court of
First Instance, the latter shall have jurisdiction over the ratification of the arbitrator’s
award. In violation of this rule, the Court of Appeal ratified the arbitrator’s award, while
it should have transferred the case to the Court of First Instance for this purpose.
The Court of Cassation held that the Petitioner’s argument was correct. As a general
rule, the court that has jurisdiction over the appointment of arbitrators and the
ratification of awards is the court that would have had jurisdiction to hear the
Table of contents
substance of the dispute in the absence of an arbitration agreement. The Court of
First Instance had jurisdiction over the appointment of arbitrators and the ratification
of awards, not the Court of Appeal. According to the Court, the exception to this rule
would be if the Court of First Instance had decided on a matter that fell within the
jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Court held that in the present case the Court of First
Instance had only issued a ruling on the arbitrator’s appointment and had never been
asked to ratify the subsequent award. The Court of Appeal had therefore erred in
ratifying the award because it was the Court of First Instance that had jurisdiction to
do so.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was overturned.
Index


Petition to Cassation No. 233 of 2007 issued on 13 January 2008 – Civil
Headnote Arbitration – Content of award – Dissenting awards – Majority awards – Requirements

for signature of arbitrators
Summary The Respondent initiated an action before the Dubai Court of First Instance
of facts requesting the annulment of an award issued on 28 January 2007. In explaining the
statement of claim, the Respondent indicated that, under an agreement dated 24
April 2001, the Petitioners had bought a publication house that was fully owned by
the Respondent. The two parties had agreed to settle the disputes arising between
Index
them by way of arbitration if an amicable settlement could not be reached. A dispute

emerged between the parties and was subsequently referred to a tripartite arbitration
panel. On 28 January 2007, the arbitration award was issued. On 25 April 2007, the
Court of First Instance annulled the arbitration award issued on 28 January 2007 on
the basis that the copy of the award presented by the Petitioners indicated that the
award did not include the signature of the arbitrators on the pages containing the
grounds. A copy of the arbitrators’ signatures could only be found on the last page,
which only included the dispositive part of the award. The Petitioners appealed the
ruling in Appeal No. 362 of 2007 – Civil and presented another copy of the arbitration
award with the arbitrators’ signatures attached to the grounds. On 27 September
2007, the Court of Appeal upheld the appealed judgment. The Petitioners filed a
petition to cassation challenging this judgment. The Respondent requested the
dismissal of the petition to cassation.
Held The Petition to Cassation was dismissed.
Table of contents
Unless an award is signed by all of the arbitrators, the award is null and void. The
exception to this rule is where an arbitrator refuses to sign the award. In such cases,
the award will be valid only if a majority of the other arbitrators sign the award, while
the fact that one of the arbitrators refused to sign the award must be noted in the
wording of the award.
The arbitration award includes both the grounds and a dispositive part. Both parts of
the award must be signed by all of the arbitrators in order to be valid. The exception
to this is where the dispositive part is attached to the grounds. In the absence of this
exception, all the pages of the award must be signed by all of the arbitrators.
Judgment The Petition to Cassation is based on two arguments in which the Petitioners claim
that the Court of Appeal’s judgment involved a misapplication of the law.
First, the Petitioners claim that the challenged judgment involved a violation and
faulty application of the law, because, under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code,
litigants are only able to request the annulment of the arbitration award in cases that
are exclusively defined, and then only when the Court of First Instance is considering
the ratification of such exclusively defined cases. No initial claim may be filed to
request the annulment of the arbitration award. Since the Respondent filed the claim
to annul the arbitration award before the Petitioners filed the claim to ratify the award,
the Court of First Instance should have dismissed the claim for being filed prematurely.
As the challenged judgment ignored this consideration, the challenged award should
be deemed defective and should therefore be overruled.
The Petitioners’ first argument is incorrect. As the third paragraph of Article 213 of the
Civil Procedure Code states: “As for the arbitration which takes place between the
litigant parties outside the court, the arbitrators should deliver a copy of the decision
to each party within five days from the delivery of the arbitration decision and the
court shall examine the authentication or the nullity of the decision according to the

Petition to Cassation No. 233 of 2007 issued on 13 January 2008 – Civil
request of one of the litigant parties through the usual procedures of the action
prosecution.” Paragraph 1 of Article 216 of the Code states: “The litigant parties may
request the nullity of the arbitrators’ decision when the court examines its
authentication and that shall be in the following circumstances: … (c) If a nullity in the
decision or a nullity in the procedures which has affected the decision has occurred.”
Under the provisions of Article 217.1 and 217.2, the Civil Procedure Code states that
arbitration awards may not be challenged by any means and that the judgment
ratifying or nullifying the award may be challenged through proper means. Together
these provisions indicate that, although arbitration awards may not be challenged by
any means stated in the Civil Procedure Code, the litigant may request the annulment
of the award on one of the grounds mentioned in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of
Table of contents
Article 216. This request may be presented either as an accidental request, i.e., when
the court is considering the ratification claim filed by the other party to the award in
accordance with Article 216.1, or through the normal procedures as expressly stated in
Article 217.2, even before the ratification claim is filed. The Code thus does not force
the losing litigant in the arbitration to wait until a ratification claim is filed before filing
a request for the annulment of the award.
The Court considers that it was established from the case papers that the arbitration
was conducted away from the court, with the Respondent filing papers through the
normal procedures for initial claim and requesting the annulment of the arbitration
award. The Court therefore considers that the Court of Appeal acted appropriately in
considering that the request was filed in the prescribed legal manner and further
considers that the Court of Appeal did not err in its application of the law. The Court
therefore does not accept the arguments made by the Petitioners and considers them
to be legally groundless.
The Petitioners’ defence before the Court is further that, under Article 212.5 of the Civil
Procedure Code, it was enough for the arbitration award to include the signatures of
all or most of the arbitrators who participated in the hearings and deliberations for it
to be considered a valid award. This is notwithstanding the fact that they only signed
the dispositive part, as there was no need for signatures on all the pages, including the
Index
grounds of the award, if the dispositive part included a link to the grounds.
The copy of the award that was presented to the Court of First Instance included the
signatures of the arbitrators on the dispositive part of the award and was considered
to be free of defect.
The other copy of the arbitration award that was delivered to the Petitioners and
presented by them to the Court of Appeal was signed by the majority of the
arbitrators.
The Petitioners’ main defence is that the Court of Appeal’s judgment, in upholding the
Court of First Instance’s judgment, ignored the fact that there were two different
copies of the award when it held that the award invalid on the basis that it did not
include the arbitrators’ signatures on the grounds and that the inclusion of the
signatures on dispositive part alone was insufficient to make the award valid. The
Court of Appeal cited the copy of the award submitted by the Respondents before
the Court of First Instance while ignoring the copy submitted by the Petitioners
before the Court of Appeal and the Petitioners’ explanation that there were
differences between the signatures on the two copies of the award. The Petitioners
argue that since the Court of Appeal did not verify whether or not the signatures
matched, either by appointing experts or asking the arbitrators to authenticate their
signatures, the judgment must be considered defective and overruled.

The Court considers that the Petitioners’ argument is inadmissible. Article 212.5 of the
Civil Procedure Code states: “The arbitrators’ decision shall be delivered with a
majority of opinions and it should be written together with the contradictory opinion,
and it should particularly include a copy of the arbitration agreement and a resume of
the litigant parties’ statements, their documents, the decision’s reason and its
pronunciation, its delivery date, its delivery place, the arbitrators’ signatures, and if one
or more of the arbitrators has refused to sign the decision that should be mentioned
therein, and the decision shall be valid if the majority of the arbitrators have signed it.”
This wording indicates that one of the essential pieces of data that should be included
in an arbitration award is the signature of the arbitrators, as this is the only evidence
that the award legally exists. The absence of this will render the award subject to
Index
annulment. The Court considers that the sole viable exception to this is when the
grounds, or part thereof, are attached to the page where the dispositive part is
recorded and has been signed by all of the arbitrators. The exception works by
effectively extending the effect of the signatures so that they include the grounds of
the award. This fulfils the statutory requirement for all of the arbitrators to sign the
award. Where the grounds of the award are issued in pages separate from the
dispositive part of the award, all the pages of the award must be signed by all the
arbitrators, in addition to the last page including the dispositive part. Otherwise, the
award shall be invalid. Where one or more arbitrators decline to sign the award this
shall be mentioned in the award, and in that case the award shall be valid with no
omission or default, as long as it has been signed by the majority of the arbitrators.
The Court considers that even if the award had been signed by all the arbitrators, the
fact that the dispositive part was separate from the pages including the grounds of
the award necessitated that the arbitrators sign all the pages containing the grounds,
Table of contents
in addition to the last page containing the dispositive part.
The Court considered that the two copies of the award, whether presented by the
Respondent or the Petitioners, showed no evidence that all three of the arbitrators
had signed the pages containing the grounds in addition to the last page containing
the dispositive part. On that basis, the award was invalid notwithstanding that the
copy presented by the Petitioners to the Court of Appeal had two signatures on the
grounds of the award, ascribed to only two of the three arbitrators who signed the
dispositive part. Neither copy of the award mentioned that an arbitrator had declined
to sign it. All of the arbitrators signed the separate page containing the dispositive
part of the award, and on this basis the Court considered that this left no room to
argue that the award should be valid with only two signatures. The award would have
only been valid if the award reported that the third arbitrator had declined to sign it.
Having an arbitrator with a different opinion to the other two does not automatically
mean that he has to decline to sign the award, but it does make it necessary to have
the arbitrator’s signature on both the dispositive part and the grounds of the award,
otherwise the award shall be invalid.
The Court considers the decision of the Court of Appeal to be the true conclusion,
regardless of whether or not it had expressly mentioned that it did not rely on the
copy of the award as presented to it by the Petitioners.

Petition No. 268 of 2007 issued on 19 February 2008

Headnote Arbitration – Content of award – Grounds for nullification of award – Scope of

arbitration agreement – Time limit for arbitration proceedings
Summary The Petitioner initiated a legal action against the two Respondents requesting the
of facts nullification of the arbitration award issued by the Second Respondent. The Petitioner,
a Kuwaiti national involved in the business of share trading, the First Respondent, an
American citizen also involved in the business of share trading, and a third party (the
“Third Party”) agreed to purchase 27,500 shares of Dubai Islamic Bank. It was further
Table of contents
agreed that the Third Party would purchase the shares and that the First Respondent
and the Petitioner would pay the amount of the shares in exchange for the equal
distribution of the dividends generated. The shares were purchased by the Third Party
as agreed under two shares certificates. The 27,500 shares purchased were then
doubled, by virtue of bonus shares, totalling 41,250 shares. It was further established in
the proceedings that the First Respondent took control of the shares by threatening
the Third Party, following which a dispute arose between the Petitioner and the First
Respondent in relation to the distribution of dividends. Both the Petitioner and the
First Respondent entered into an arbitration agreement to refer their dispute to the
Second Respondent acting as arbitrator. The award rendered by the arbitrator was
challenged by the Petitioner. However, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim.
The Petitioner appealed against the judgment, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal. The Petitioner subsequently challenged the appeal before the Court of
Cassation, claiming, among other things, that the award was rendered after the expiry
of the time limit on which the parties had agreed.
According to Article 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, the agreement on a time limit for
the rendering of the award by the arbitrator, contained within an arbitration clause,
does not prevent the parties from either explicitly or implicitly agreeing to extend
Index
such time limit later on. The implicit agreement may result from the parties meeting to
discuss the subject matter of the dispute after the expiry of the time limit for
rendering the award.
Judgment The appeal is based on six grounds.
On the first ground, the Petitioner argued that the arbitrator exceeded his power by
deciding on the partnership between the parties when the subject matter of the
dispute submitted to arbitration was the distribution of dividends.
The Court of Cassation rejected the argument on the ground that the determination
of the subject matter of the dispute is at the sole discretion of the lower courts. The
Court further stated that investigating the issue of the Petitioner’s distribution of the
dividends fell within the scope of the subject matter of the dispute and that
arbitration is not solely restricted to the dividends but extends to the determination of
the obligations of each party in the partnership of the shares.
On the second ground, the Petitioner argued that, in electing not to resolve the
dispute by way of conciliation, the arbitrator had exceeded his power. According to
the Petitioner, the arbitration agreement provided that the parties would refer the
dispute to the arbitrator for conciliation.

The Court of Cassation rejected the argument on the basis that, while the arbitration
agreement provided that the arbitrator was empowered to pursue conciliation, this
does not mean that the arbitrator had to initiate conciliation between the parties prior
to starting the arbitration procedure, as long as the arbitration agreement did not
provide otherwise.
On the third ground, the Petitioner claimed that, while his attorney was entitled to
represent him during the course of arbitration procedure, he was not authorized to
extend the time limit within which the award had to be rendered. As a consequence,
the Petitioner argued that the award was not valid since it was rendered after the
expiry of the time limit agreed upon between the parties.
Index
The Court of Cassation rejected the argument. It further held that the attorney
authorized to represent the parties in the arbitration was empowered to carry on
specific matters. If the arbitration agreement determines a time limit for rendering the
award, the parties may extend such date either expressly or implicitly. The implied
agreement to extend the time limit may result from the fact that the parties attended
a meeting before the arbitrator to discuss the subject matter of the dispute following
the expiry of the time limit. The Court of Cassation further held that one of the
essential features of arbitration is the possibility to extend the time limit for rendering
the award. The attorney shall have the right to extend this time limit.
With respect to the remaining grounds, the Petitioner claimed that the minutes of the
arbitration hearing had been forged. In this respect, the Petitioner further claimed that
the minutes of the hearing stated that the Respondent’s attorney attended the
hearing while in reality he did not. This was allegedly corroborated by the absence of
his signature on the minutes.
Table of contents
The Court of Cassation dismissed this claim and stated that the rules of procedure are
those that should be abided by and that any claim as to their violation should be
proved. The Court of Cassation further stated that, although the arbitrator had not
produced the minutes of the hearing as ordered by the Court of Appeal upon the
Petitioner’s request, the arbitrator was not obliged to file the minutes of the arbitration
hearing with the clerk of the Court since the arbitration was conducted outside of the
court. Furthermore, the Court held that the Petitioner did not make any reservation
before the arbitrator concerning the contents of the minutes of the hearing. Moreover,
the signature of the Petitioner’s attorney on the minutes of the hearing is not exactly a
prerequisite and its absence does not constitute an indication of forgery. Finally, it was
established that the lower courts may consider the validity of the plea of forgery at
their discretion.
Accordingly, the petition to cassation was dismissed.

Petition No. 305 of 2007 issued on 25 February 2008 – Commercial

Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Representation of parties
Summary The Petitioner requested the ratification and enforcement of the award rendered by
of facts the arbitrator on 18 September 2006. The Petitioner stated that on 20 November
2002, an agreement was concluded between the Petitioner and the Respondent
whereby the Respondent acted as a subcontractor in the construction of three
residential multi-storey towers in the Dubai Marina development project. According to
the agreement, the consideration payable in lieu of the accomplishment of the three
Table of contents
towers was AED 23,562,666. As only two towers were completed, the Petitioner
claimed a payment of AED 4,942,564.49 in addition to an amount of AED 809,226.44,
being the legal interest accumulating until 20 April 2005. Clause 16 of the agreement
stipulated that any dispute arising between the parties and not amicably resolved
within 180 days in accordance with the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations of the
local Chamber of Commerce would be settled through arbitration, which the
Petitioner initiated on 15 September 2005.
The Respondent filed a counterclaim for AED 9,445,719 and requested that the
dispute be referred to an expert. The arbitrator conducted the arbitral proceedings,
heard witnesses, appointed an expert and, following the submission of the expert’s
final report, rendered an award on 18 September 2006.
Thereafter, the Petitioner initiated proceedings to set aside the award. On 8 February
2007, the Court of First Instance annulled the award. The Respondent appealed this
judgment, and on 12 November 2007 the Court of Appeal set aside the appealed
judgment and ordered that the claim for ratification of the award be considered again.
The Petitioner challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation requesting that
the Court of Appeal’s judgment to be overturned.
Index
According to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code, arbitrators are not required to
follow the procedures applicable to lawsuits filed with the courts of law. Arbitrators
are required to abide by the procedures prescribed under the arbitration chapter of
the Civil Procedure Code as well as any other procedures agreed upon by the parties,
including the observance of the right of defence. The parties may attend the arbitral
sessions, and they may also authorize third parties to represent them in the arbitration
procedures. Such third parties need not necessarily be attorneys at law or authorized
under an official power of attorney. Rather, such authorization may be made implicitly,
and shall be subject to the discretion of the court hearing the merits of the dispute.

Judgment The petitioner’s argument was twofold. Firstly, the Petitioner argued that the
challenged judgment involved a misapplication of the law and is therefore invalid.
Secondly, the Petitioner argued that, after cancelling the appealed judgment which
rendered the award null, the Court of Appeal considered the award ratification claim
without remanding the claim to the Court of First Instance, whose jurisdiction over the
subject matter was not exhausted and whose decision was limited to acceptance of a
secondary plea as to the nullification of the award. Hence, the challenged judgment
deprived the Petitioner from the consideration of the action before two levels of
jurisdiction and was passed in contradiction of Article 166 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The challenged judgment was thus considered to be defective and must therefore be
overturned.
Index
The court rejected the above argument. Article 166 of the Civil Procedure Code
provides: “In case the Court of First Instance adjudicates on the subject matter of the
action, and the Court of Appeal sees that such judgment or any of the procedures
affecting the same is invalid, then the Court of Appeal shall cancel the same and
adjudicate on the action. However, in case the Court of First Instance decides to have
no jurisdiction to consider the case or to accept a secondary plea resulting in the
suspension of the case, and the Court of Appeal decides to cancel such judgment and
to confirm jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance or to dismiss the secondary plea
and to consider the case, then the Court of Appeal shall remand the Case to the Court
of First Instance to reconsider the subject matter thereof.” According to this article, as
well as what is customary in the adjudication of the courts, when the Court of Appeal
decides that a judgment passed by the Court of First Instance is defective in its
reasoning or the procedures thereof and that this defect does not extend to the
statement of claim, then the Court of Appeal shall adjudicate on the subject matter of
Table of contents
the action, as long as the Court of First Instance has exhausted its jurisdiction over
such action.
The Court held that the Court of First Instance had exhausted its jurisdiction with
respect to the subject matter of the action, namely the award ratification petition.
The Court of Appeal overturned the appealed judgment for being defective and
considered the award ratification petition submitted. Thus, the Court of Appeal has
acted in accordance with the applicable law, and any argument against the above
shall be deemed groundless.
In the second ground, the Petitioner argued that the challenged judgment involved a
breach and misapplication of the law, defective causation and violation of the Principle
of Equality of Arms. According to the Petitioner, the challenged judgment decided to
nullify the judgment passed by the Court of First Instance and to ratify the award
based on the fact that the power of attorney mentioned in the arbitration deed and
issued to the attorney at law applies only to representation during arbitration
procedures and not to the signing of the arbitration deed. This is because the
arbitration clause was incorporated in the construction contract and no power of
attorney was conferred by the Petitioner. Therefore, the arbitrator did not serve any
summons upon the Petitioner to appear, provide his testimony and sign the relevant
arbitration document. Additionally, the arbitrator did not define the relationship
between the alleged attorney and the Petitioner, and erroneously assumed that he
was the representative or agent of the Petitioner. As the challenged judgment
concluded that the power of attorney was conferred on the attorney at law to
represent the Petitioner during arbitration the judgment was deemed to be defective
and should be overturned.

The court rejected the argument, pursuant to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code
discussed above. It is established from the case papers that the attorney appeared
during procedures in his capacity as the representative of the Respondent against
whom the arbitration was sought and that he was authorized to defend the same in
accordance with the power of attorney issued. Additionally, the attorney submitted his
defence and filed a counterclaim before the arbitrator. It is established from the letter
of establishment dated 12 December 2005 that the attorney was appointed by the
general manager of the Petitioner to defend the same. This letter also included the
delegation of […] to represent the Petitioner. As the challenged judgment concluded
that the arbitration clause was incorporated in the construction contract and that the
Petitioner was duly represented in the arbitration procedures, the argument made on
Table of contents
this ground is thus deemed to be groundless.
Index


Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Public order
Summary The Petitioner had instituted an earlier action against the Respondent to claim an
of facts insurance amount from the Respondent’s insurer. The Petitioner’s wife, who had held
the relevant policy, had died, and the Petitioner claimed the insurance amounts as sole
beneficiary. The Court did not accept this action, due to the existence of an arbitration
clause in the insurance policy. Accordingly, the Petitioner commenced arbitration
proceedings against the Respondent, which resulted in an award in favour of the
Index
Petitioner and an order for the Respondent to pay AED 3,500,000 plus legal interest
of 9% (which totalled four times the amount of the award itself). The Respondent
appealed on the grounds that the arbitrator followed rules of the Civil Procedure
Code, which did not apply, in issuing his decision concerning interest, rather than the
Contracts Law of 1971, and on the grounds that the Republic of Lebanon also had a
share in the insurance amount, under the Decree of Distribution, so the Petitioner was
not solely entitled to the insurance amount.
The Respondent submitted a motion to set aside the arbitrator’s award on the
following grounds:
1. The arbitrator’s award obliged the Respondent to pay the insurance sum as well as
legal interest of 9% pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code, although the Court of
Cassation stated in its judgment relating to the existence of an arbitration
agreement that a disputed insurance policy and the resulting effects are not
subject to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code but rather to the Contracts
Table of contents
Law of 1971.
2. The arbitrator’s award ordered interest that exceeded the insurance amount by
four times, in breach of the provisions of the sixth chapter of the Contracts Law of
1971 and in breach of the sixth article of the insurance policy that stated that the
paid amount should not bear any interest.
3. The arbitrator violated Islamic law by considering the Petitioner as the sole heir, as
the Decree of Distribution establishes that the deceased’s estate consists of two
shares: one for the Petitioner and the other for the Republic of Lebanon.
4. The arbitrator had decided that the Petitioner had legal capacity in relation to the
insurance policy despite the fact that the Petitioner had not taken any action to
appoint an administrator or liquidator for the deceased’s estate under Article 17 of
the Law Regulating the Lebanese Sharia Courts.
5. The power of attorney issued by the Petitioner to his attorney was issued in the
Petitioner’s capacity as the sole beneficiary of the insurance policy, making the
representation invalid.
6. The arbitrator’s award was based on a letter sent by the Respondent as an
insurance policy.
7. The arbitrator had dismissed the argument that the right to claim the value of the
insurance policy had lapsed through prescription on the basis that the penal action
instituted in Lebanon in which the Petitioner was accused of murdering his wife
had interrupted the prescription. However, the Respondent did not use the long
prescription as a defence but rather the three-year prescription in Article 1036 of
8. The arbitrator’s award was based on an invalid arbitration deed, as the Respondent
had not responded to the arbitrator’s request to sign the arbitration deed.

The court accepted the grounds to appeal and decided to set aside the arbitral award
on the basis that the award was issued against the public order in allowing the
Petitioner to recoup the whole insurance amount when he only had a right to part of it
and for basing the decision on the wrong law. The court also dismissed the
indemnification claim against the Respondent.
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition to cassation to challenge the Court of

Appeal’s judgment, alleging, firstly, that he was in fact the sole heir under the Decree
of Distribution and, secondly, that public order is not a ground for invalidating an
arbitral award under Article 216 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code.
Table of contents
It is established by this Court and under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code that
the litigants may move to invalidate the arbitrators’ award when its endorsement is
under consideration by the court in the cases listed in said article, which relate to
procedural irregularities and compliance with the arbitration agreement. The original
rule is that the court should not decide on the merits of the case subject to the award
of the arbitrator’s award and its conformity to the law. However, by way of exception,
if it is established that the arbitrator issued his award in breach of the public order
rules, the court shall verify this breach in light of the applicable rules in the judge’s
country alone. Although such a breach is not included in the cases listed in Article 216,
this does not mean that it should not be considered as a reason for invalidating the
award, given that public order is a fundamental regulation.
Judgment The Court stated that the judgment overturning the award made no mention of the
sources on which it relied in finding that the arbitrator’s award was against the
principles of the Islamic Sharia (regarding inheritance rules) and against public order
in the UAE (regarding the interests it awarded) because it depended on the Decree of
Distribution issued by the Lebanese Sunni Endowments Department as evidence and
not on the relevant legislation itself. Therefore, it had not been established that the
arbitrator’s award was against the principles of Islamic Sharia regarding inheritance
Index
rules and there was no indication of any breach of the law.
It is established in the adjudication of this Court and under the Article 216 of the Civil
Procedure Code that the litigants may request setting aside an arbitrator’s award
when it is submitted to the court for ratification in the cases listed in said article, which
relate, for example and without limitation, to procedural irregularities. The rule is that
the Court may not decide on the irregularities of the arbitrator’s award or its
conformity with the law.
However, by way of exception, if it is established that the arbitrator issued his award in
breach of the public order rules, the court shall verify this breach in light of the
applicable rules in the judge’s country and not in any other country. Although such a
breach is not included in the cases set forth in Article 216, this does not mean that it
should not be considered as a reason for setting aside the award, given that public
order is a fundamental regulation. Hence, an arbitrator’s award that breaches public
order in the country where the action to invalidate or execute the award is instituted
before its courts shall be subject to invalidation or non-execution in such country even
if the award is correct or applicable in any other country for not breaching its public
order rules. Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code states that all the provisions relating
to personal affairs, including marriage and inheritance, and all provisions relating to
the regime, freedom of trade, transfer of powers, intellectual property rules and other
rules and principles on which society is based shall be deemed part of the public
order unless they conflict with the conclusive provisions and principles of Islamic
Sharia law.

In the chapter relating to jurisdiction rules, Article 27 of the Civil Procedure Code
stipulates that the provisions of a law laid down in accordance with the preceding
texts shall not apply if those provisions conflict with Islamic Sharia law or public order
rules in the UAE.
Article 409 of the Federal Penal Code provides: “Any natural person who deals in
usury with another natural person in any civil or commercial transaction shall be
punished with imprisonment for no less than three months and with a fine of no less
than 2,000 Dirhams. This shall include any terms or conditions implying any express
or implicit interest, commission or benefit of any kind by the creditor, when it is
established that such interest, commission or benefit does not correspond to any
Index
lawful benefit or service rendered by the creditor. Such implicit debt or interest may
be established by any means.” This means that the inheritance rules of Islamic Sharia
law and the public order rules of the United Arab Emirates, including the prohibited
usury transactions, falls under the public order rules that the Court shall consider
when ratifying or setting aside an arbitrator’s award.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is overturned, as it did not mention the
sources on which it relied in deciding that the arbitrator’s award violated public order.
Table of contents

Case No. 272 of 2008 issued on 25 January 2009

Case No. 272 of 2008 issued on 25 January 2009
Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – ICC rules of arbitration
Summary The parties concluded an exclusive commercial agency agreement dated 8 June
of facts 2000, which was duly registered with the Commercial Agencies Department of the
UAE Ministry of Economy and Planning.
The agreement was subsequently renewed until 3 April 2008. It provided for
arbitration of any disputes arising out of it under the ICC Rules. The Respondent, the
exclusive agent, entered into contractual agreements in the exclusive territory without
Table of contents
paying the agreed commission to the Petitioner, the principal, in breach of the
exclusive agency agreement. Following the Respondent’s failure to agree to the
appointment of a sole arbitrator and its refusal to accept service of a request for
arbitration dated 17 June 2006, the Petitioner made an application to the Dubai Court
of First Instance requesting the appointment of a professional accountant to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Following the Dubai Court of First
Instance rejection of the application and the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the
subsequent appeal, the Petitioner filed the petition before the Court of Cassation.
It is true that Article 204.1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that “if the litigation
has occurred and the litigant parties haven’t agreed on the arbitrators, or one or more
arbitrators, who was agreed on, has abstained from the work, has retired there from,
has been dismissed there from, or his refusal has been decided, or a hindrance has
prevented his undertaking therein, and there were not an agreement between the
litigant parties concerning that, the court which is principally authorized to examine
that litigation shall appoint whoever shall be needed of the arbitrators, and that on the
grounds of a request from one of the litigant parties, through the usual procedures of
the action prosecution. The number of those appointed by the court should be equal
Index
to the number agreed on between the litigant parties or completing thereto.”.
However, if the arbitration clause specifies the procedure for the appointment of
arbitrators, it should be strictly followed and no recourse may be made to the court
originally having jurisdiction to hear the dispute for the appointment of arbitrators.
Judgment The Petitioner argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal confirmed the
dismissal of the action on the basis that the appointment of the arbitrator fall within
the jurisdiction of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, while pursuant to
Article 18 of the Commercial Agencies Law only the UAE courts have jurisdiction to
adjudicate any dispute arising from the performance of an agency agreement
between the principal and the agent. Therefore, the Respondent’s failure to respond
to the Petitioner’s invitation to appoint an arbitrator extinguished the Respondent’s
right to invoke the arbitration clause, which meant that the court was then competent
to hear the dispute.
The Court of Cassation held that the arbitration clause is considered as a whole and
that the amendment of any element therein, such as the procedure for the selection
of the number of arbitrators, can only be made with the parties’ express consent.
It is true that Article 204.1 of the Civil Procedure Code provided that “If the litigation
has occurred and the litigant parties haven’t agreed on the arbitrators, or one or more
arbitrators, who was agreed on, has abstained from the work, has retired there from,
has been dismissed there from, or his refusal has been decided, or a hindrance has
prevented his undertaking therein, and there were not an agreement between the
litigant parties concerning that, the court which is principally authorized to examine

that litigation shall appoint whoever shall be needed of the arbitrators, and that on the
grounds of a request from one of the litigant parties, through the usual procedures of
the action prosecution. The number of those appointed by the court should be equal
to the number agreed on between the litigant parties or completing thereto.”
However, if the arbitration clause specifies the procedure for the appointment of
arbitrators, it should be strictly followed and no recourse may be made to the court
originally having jurisdiction to hear the dispute for the appointment of arbitrators.
With respect to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce,

which were referenced in the arbitration clause between the parties, the case shall be
settled by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the ICC Rules. On this basis,
Index
it was not appropriate for the Petitioner to have approached the courts to appoint the
arbitrator. Furthermore, this meant that the Petitioner’s claim regarding the
Respondent’s failure to acknowledge and respond to the request for arbitration was
wrong, since such failure does not result in a waiver of the procedure following which
the arbitrators were to be appointed pursuant to the aforementioned arbitration
clause. Therefore, the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the
request for arbitration constituted an amendment to the arbitration clause was
equally incorrect.

Table of contents


Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award

– Minutes of arbitration hearings
Summary The Respondents (sisters) filed a case against the Petitioner (their brother) before the
of facts Court of First Instance requesting the appointment of an expert to determine the
share of each one of them in a plot of land in Dubai and their revenues generated
from the building built on it.
The parties had all agreed to purchase the plot of land together and construct a
Table of contents
building on it that would ultimately be let. It was agreed that the Respondents would
manage the project and register the land in the name of all of the parties with the
Dubai Land Department (DLD). The purchase price was paid by both parties and the
Petitioner took possession of the plot and registered it solely in his name with the
DLD. Once the building had been constructed and was being let, the parties fell into
dispute over how the proceeds should be split. As per the terms of the written
agreement between them, the matter was referred to arbitration, and an award was
rendered in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondents then sought a declaration from
the Court of First Instance that the award was invalid on the basis that the arbitrator
had failed to follow certain procedures set down in the Civil Procedure Code, namely
that he had not served the parties with a notice of summons and had not taken any
minutes of the hearing.
The Petitioner successfully applied to have the claim struck out on the basis that
the arbitration clause made it clear that the arbitrator could conduct the arbitration
without reference to the Civil Procedure Code “unless in matters relevant to public
order”. The Court therefore ratified the arbitration award, but the decision was
overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition
to cassation.
Index
The arbitrator must abide by the prescribed procedures of arbitration and the specific
procedures upon which the litigants agree. With respect to an arbitration conducted
outside the court, the arbitrator is not required to take minutes of the arbitration
hearings unless he is obliged to do so at the request of the litigants or under the rules
of institutional arbitration as the case may be.
The arbitrator’s failure to serve a notice of summons to the disputing parties was not
an adequate ground for nullifying the award insofar as this defect did not obstruct the
intended purpose of the procedure. Furthermore, an invalidation that was based on
the arbitrator’s failure to serve a summons upon the disputing parties was a relative
one and irrelevant to public order as it was designed for the benefit of the litigant who
was not served to appear before arbitration.
Judgment The challenge was based on one ground according to which the Petitioner alleged
that the challenged judgment involved a misapplication of law. The adjudication of the
court was based on the ground that the papers did not reveal whether the arbitrator
had actually observed the procedures prescribed under Articles 208, 212 and 216 of
the Civil Procedure Code for summoning the disputing parties, hearing the grounds of
their defences and enabling them to make their submissions.

The claim was admissible, as the defects that the party seeking the invalidation of
arbitration award may maintain are exclusively enumerated under Article 216 of the
Civil Procedure Code and relate either to the arbitration agreement or the arbitral
proceedings.
The arbitrator shall abide by the prescribed procedures of arbitration and any specific
procedures upon which the litigants agree. If the arbitration was conducted within the
court, the arbitrator must apply the procedures laid down in the first and second
paragraphs of Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code. If it was conducted outside the
court through an ad hoc tribunal or institutional arbitration, the procedures to be
followed, in particular, are those provided for in the third paragraph of the same
Index
article.
The arbitrator was not required to take minutes of the arbitration hearings unless he
was obliged to do so at the request of the parties or under the rules of institutional
arbitration. It is imperative under Articles 208 and 212 to summon the disputing
parties, hear their defences and enable them to submit their documents in application
of the rules on hearing the disputing parties. Under the same articles, however, the
arbitrator was not restricted by the rules of the Civil Procedure Code upon serving a
notice of summons to the disputing parties. The arbitrator’s failure to serve a notice of
summons upon the disputing parties is not an adequate ground for nullifying the
award, insofar as this defect did not obstruct the intended purpose of the procedure.
Invalidation that was based on the arbitrator’s failure to serve a summons upon the
disputing parties was a relative one and irrelevant to public order, as it was designed
for the benefit of the litigant who was not served to appear before arbitration.
The arbitrator was not obliged under the Civil Procedure Code with respect to
Table of contents
arbitration to take minutes of the arbitration hearings held with respect to the present
dispute. The arbitrator satisfied the rule of hearing the disputing parties through the
submission of both parties’ memorandums bearing their requests and grounds of
defence. As a consequence, the purpose of serving the notice of summons upon the
parties was fulfilled.

ABU DHABI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Separability of arbitration agreement - Appointment of arbitrators
Summary The Petitioner entered into a licensing agreement with the Respondent allowing him
of facts to sell the Petitioner’s products in the UAE. A dispute arose between the parties in
relation to their agreement. The parties’ agreement included an arbitration clause, but
the Respondent refused to appoint an arbitrator. The Petitioner therefore obtained
from the Court of First Instance a judgment appointing an arbitrator. The Respondent
appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal reversed the
Table of contents
decision of the Court of First Instance. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition to
cassation.
The arbitration clause is autonomous from the contract in which it is included. The
invalidity of the contract does not affect the validity of the arbitration clause.
The decision of the court to appoint an arbitrator was not subject to any form of
appeal.
Judgment Article 203.1 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the decision of the court to
appoint an arbitrator was not subject to any form of appeal. So as long as the parties
have agreed to arbitrate any disputes that may arise in relation to the performance of
their contract, either party may request the court to appoint arbitrators. This could be
because the parties had initially failed to agree on arbitrators, or had agreed on an
arbitrator who was then precluded from acting, or disagreed on the appointment of
an arbitrator. In cases where the competent court then decides to appoint an
arbitrator to resolve the parties’ dispute over the performance of the contract, such a
decision shall not be subject to any form of appeal.
It was further established that the invalidity, rescission or termination of the original
Index
contract containing the arbitration clause shall not affect the arbitration clause, which
shall remain in full force and effect so long as the arbitration clause itself was valid.
While the contract is deemed void, the arbitration clause is not void and removes the
dispute from the jurisdiction of the courts to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
The Petitioner had approached the Court of First Instance to appoint an arbitrator
after the Respondent refused to pursue an amicable solution and did not respond to
the Petitioner’s invitation to nominate an arbitrator to commence arbitration. The
Petitioner was awarded its appointment request by the Court of First Instance and the
appointing decision cannot be appealed. The contested decision held that appeal was
possible and was thus erroneous and will be reversed without the need to consider
the other grounds of appeal.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was overturned.

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation

Headnote Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Provisional measures – Summary action
Summary The Petitioner initiated a precautionary action against the Respondent to get him
of facts evicted from his property following the termination of a lease agreement between the
parties. The Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner’s request. The Petitioner
then appealed before the Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision of the Court
of First Instance.
The Respondent appealed before the Court of Cassation, claiming that the courts had
Index
no jurisdiction to hear the case since there was an arbitration clause in the parties’
agreement, that this agreement should be extended to summary and provisional
matters and, alternatively, that the Rent Dispute Resolution Committee was the
relevant jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Held The decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
If the parties failed to agree in the arbitration agreement or arbitration clause that the
arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to decide on provisional, precautionary and summary
matters, jurisdiction will be conferred on the competent judicial body having
jurisdiction over such matters.
Judgment It was decided that, if the parties failed to agree in the arbitration agreement or
arbitration clause that the arbitrator(s) shall have jurisdiction to decide on provisional,
precautionary and summary matters, jurisdiction will be conferred on the competent
judicial body having jurisdiction over such matters. However, this does not entail a
Table of contents
waiver of the arbitration clause, which remains confined to the substantive aspects of
the dispute.
Articles 2, 24 and 25 of Law No. 20 of 2006 concerning the lease of premises and
regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi indicate
that, effective from the date of entry into force of the Law, the Rent Dispute
Resolution Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction over rent disputes, in both
substantive and summary respects. According to Article 31 of Law No. 20, all rent
disputes pending in court that have not been finally decided shall be referred to the
Rent Dispute Resolution Committee. The present dispute is a summary action
involving a request on the part of the Petitioner company to evict the Respondent
company due to the termination of the lease and the issue whether the Respondent
company can extend the lease. As such, the matter is a rent dispute over which the
Rent Dispute Resolution Committee has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the
lease has been terminated or will be extended. The committee’s jurisdiction would be
exercised to dispose of the matter summarily, including the request for provisional
relief under Article 25 of the Law. The generally worded arbitration clause appearing
in the lease does not preclude the Petitioner from filing a summary action before the
Committee. This would not be considered a waiver of the arbitration clause, which
was limited to the substantive aspects of the dispute.
The courts are held to have no jurisdiction in matters that pertain to the jurisdiction
of the Rent Dispute Resolution Committee according to Article 25 of Law No. 20
of 2006.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned.


Headnote Arbitration – Interpretation of award
Summary The Petitioner requested the Court of First Instance to ratify an arbitration award
of facts issued in his favour. The Court of First Instance ratified the award. The Respondent
appealed but the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of
the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal’s decision was also confirmed by the
Court of Cassation. The Petitioner subsequently initiated a request for the
enforcement of the award. The enforcement judge reverted to the arbitral tribunal for
Table of contents
a decision interpreting the award. The Respondent initiated an action to annul the
decision of the arbitral tribunal interpreting the award. The Court of First Instance and
the Court of Appeal rejected the Respondent’s request. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed a petition to cassation claiming, among other things, that the decision
interpreting the award did not include the names and addresses of the parties.
Held The decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
The decision interpreting the award is part of the award and as such has to comply
with all the formal requirements with which the award has to comply.
Judgment Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the execution judge shall have
jurisdiction to enforce only the writ of execution and to issue related judgments,
decisions and orders in all provisional enforcement disputes where a provisional
remedy is sought in the form of a stay of enforcement without referring to the merits
of the case.
On the other hand, if the relief sought relates to the merits of the case then the action
would be a substantive action before the courts in which the execution judge’s role
would only be to enforce the writ of execution of the court’s decision. If the decision
was ambiguous or the reasons are not sufficiently particularized for the purpose of
enforcement, the execution judge must direct the party seeking enforcement to the
Index
court that issued the decision in question to clarify any ambiguity. As such, disputes
involving the clarification of a writ of execution are not enforcement disputes and are
outside the jurisdiction of the execution judge.
A decision on the request for clarification and explanation of the arbitrators’ award
was therefore considered a substantive matter and thus did not fall within the power
of the execution judge under Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code.
A decision interpreting an award is considered supplementary to the arbitral award.

Awards must satisfy certain formal requirements. Court decisions must be issued
based on a properly instituted proceeding that allows the parties to attend court and
submit their defence and arguments and review and respond to documents,
memoranda and reports filed in the proceeding in accordance with the principle of
confrontation and the rights of defence. A decision must also be issued in the
statutory form prescribed for decisions, stating the issuing court, the date and place
of issue and the names of the participating judges. The decision must be issued in
writing and signed and must state the first name, surname, capacity and domicile or
place of work of the parties and include a summary of their requests for relief,
comments and evidence. The decision must also be reasoned.
The interpretation decision of the arbitral tribunal does not satisfy the above-
mentioned formal requirements for decisions and was therefore void.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned.


Summary The Petitioner , the owner of a plot of land, entered into an agreement with the
of facts Respondent under which the Respondent would invest in and rent the land owned by
the Petitioner for a period of 31 years in return for the construction of a residential
compound worth AED 35 million.
A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the construction of the residential
compound. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to complete the
Index
construction of the compound as agreed between the parties. The Petitioner

therefore initiated an action before the Court of First Instance requesting the
annulment of the agreement. The Court of First Instance held that it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the case since there was an arbitration clause in the parties’
agreement. The Petitioner appealed this decision before the Court of Appeal, which
annulled the decision and sent the case back to the Court of First Instance to settle
the dispute.
The Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.

The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute where the parties have agreed
that their dispute will be settled by arbitration. The courts are precluded from
determining the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal before the latter hear the
dispute.
Table of contents
Judgment Articles 203.1 and 203.5 of the Civil Procedure Code provide that an arbitration
agreement in respect of a specific dispute, whether in the form of a clause contained
in an agreement or in the form of a separate agreement, will in principle preclude the
competent court from having jurisdiction over it. That is the negative effect of the
arbitration agreement. By way of exception, the dispute may be tried before the
courts if the other party does not raise an objection at the first hearing, denying the
right of his opponent to recourse to the courts.
It is a well-settled rule that analogies may not be drawn from exceptions, nor may the
interpretation thereof be expanded beyond their strict words. The positive effect of an
arbitration agreement is that jurisdiction is transferred away from the courts to the
arbitration tribunal. That is a consensual jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties, and it
is the arbitration panel that is the body having authority to settle the dispute in
respect of which the arbitration agreement was made.
The tribunal alone will have the power to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, the courts
are precluded from determining the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal before the
latter makes a determination on the dispute. However this does not prevent the courts
from subsequently determining the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal when
ratifying the award of the arbitrators or nullifying it pursuant to Articles 215 and 216 of
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is overturned.


Headnote Arbitration – Capacity to agree to arbitration -Time limit for arbitration proceedings
- Power of a court to review merits upon ratification
Summary The Petitioner entered into an usufruct agreement with the Respondent giving the
of facts Respondent the beneficial ownership of shops in a hotel owned by the Petitioner. A
dispute arose between the parties over the use of the shops, and the Petitioner gave
notice to the Respondent that the agreement was terminated. The Respondent
requested the Court of First Instance to appoint an arbitrator to settle the dispute as
Table of contents
per the arbitration clause included in the agreement. Following the issuance of the
award, the Respondent requested the Court of First Instance to ratify the award,
which the Petitioner opposed. The Court of First Instance ratified the award. The
Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Petitioner
filed a petition to cassation alleging that the arbitration agreement was not signed by
an authorized representative and that the award was issued after the expiry of the
time limit. It also contested the procedure followed by the arbitral tribunal.
Only a person who has capacity to dispose of a right in a dispute may validly agree to
arbitration.
Arbitrations conducted outside the court are not bound by the same procedures as
arbitrations conducted in court.
The parties may make an express or implied agreement to extend the time limit to
issue the award determined by agreement or by law.
The court may not review the merits of the award when ratifying it.
Judgment Under Article 203.4 of the Civil Procedure Code, only a person who has capacity to
dispose of a right in a dispute may validly agree to arbitration. That is because an
Index
agreement to arbitrate involves a waiver of the right to bring an action before the
courts of the UAE and of the guarantees that such action affords to the litigants. The
authority given to an agent may be express or implied. The authority will be express if
it is expressed in words, whether spoken or written. The authority will be implied if it is
deduced from the facts of the case, everything that has been said or written and
ordinary business practice, may be regarded as part of the surrounding facts.
It is settled by the law that an arbitration agreement may be contained in the contract
in respect of which the dispute has arisen or in a separate document.
Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that arbitration may be conducted in
court and outside the court. As far as arbitrations through the court are concerned,
they will be conducted by order of the court if the dispute is placed before it. In such
cases, the procedures provided for in Articles 213.1 and 213.2 of the Civil Procedure
Code must be followed. In the case of an arbitration conducted outside the court, the
procedures to be followed are those provided for in Article 213.3 of the Civil Procedure
Code. If one of the parties in an arbitration being conducted outside the court wishes
to have the award ratified or nullified, it must make an application through the normal
procedures by lodging a statement of claim with the office of the court. These
procedures are laid down in Article 42 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Pursuant to Articles 203 and 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the parties agree in
writing to settle any disputes arising between them in relation to the performance of a
contract by arbitration and stipulate a particular time limit for this purpose, the

arbitrator must make his award within the agreed time limit. If there is no agreement
on a particular time limit, he must issue award within six months from the date of the
first hearing of the arbitration, failing which it will be permissible for any of the parties
to raise the dispute before the courts. The parties may explicitly or implicitly agree to
extend the time limit determined by agreement or by law, and they may authorize the
arbitrator to extend it to a particular time. It is also open to the court, upon the
application of the arbitrator or one of the parties, to extend the time limit as it sees fit
for the determination of the dispute. Such agreement may be implied by the
attendance of the parties at an arbitration hearing and the discussion of the subject
matter of the dispute after the time limit has lapsed. That is a matter that should be
left to the appreciation of the lower court and is not subject to review by the Court of
Index
Cassation, provided that its judgment is based on sound grounds supported by the
papers.
When dealing with the ratification of an arbitration award, the court may not review
the merits. Any challenge raised by one of the parties in relation to the assessment of
the dispute, the evidence provided or the invalidity or reasoning of the award will not
be allowed.. The arbitrator is not bound to follow the rules of reasoning of the
judiciary, as long as he does not contravene the principles of public order, because he
may be a non-lawyer. This exemption applies to the procedures of evidence, whether
they are contained in the Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Code or any independent law.
With regard to the ground raised by the Petitioner relating to capacity to arbitrate,
that is a matter left to the discretion of the lower court on the basis of the facts,
evidence and documents placed before it.
All grounds submitted by the Petitioner are rejected. Accordingly, the present petition
Table of contents
to cassation is dismissed.


Headnote Arbitration – Power of attorney – Representation of parties – Terms of reference –

Unsworn testimony
Summary The Petitioners entered into an agreement with the Respondent for the purchase of a
of facts luxurious dress. Since the Petitioners failed to make full payment of the price, the
Respondent requested the Court to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the parties’
dispute, as they had agreed in their agreement to resort to arbitration in the case of a
dispute. The Court of First Instance appointed an arbitrator, who issued an award in
Table of contents
favour of the Respondent. The Respondent initiated an action for the ratification of
the award before the Court of First Instance, which ratified the award. The Petitioners
appealed before the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the decision of the Court of
First Instance. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a petition to cassation.
The power of attorney of the Respondent’s representative can only be contested by

the Respondent.
If either party fails to agree on arbitrators or if the appointed arbitrator is precluded

from acting or disagreed over the appointment of an arbitrator, the court may appoint
one.
The arbitrator’s attendance at the hearings is sufficient to constitute an implicit

acceptance of his nomination and mandate.
The award is not void if it does not rely on the unsworn testimony of the witness.
The arbitrator may rely on foreign documents as long as the other side does not
object to it during the procedure and the issue is not one of public policy.
Judgment The Petitioners argue that the power of attorney given by the Respondent’s
Index
representatives to the attorney who instituted the action was not accompanied by
proof of their authority to appoint attorneys to agree to arbitration and execute an
arbitration agreement.
The relationship between the parties and their attorneys before the lower courts is a
matter that concerns the parties alone and may not be contested by others or by the
court of its own initiative as long as the party itself does not question the power of
attorney that it granted to its representative. An agreement to arbitrate that was
agreed without specific authority provided in the power of attorney is sanctioned by
the relative nullity of the agreement to arbitrate that only the grantor of the power of
attorney has the right to raise. The Respondent has not denied giving a power of
attorney to the attorney who instituted the action. The Petitioner therefore cannot
dispute the power of attorney or claim nullity of the arbitral award on the basis that
the Respondent’s attorney exceeded his powers because the power of attorney did
not authorize him to agree to arbitrate or execute an arbitration agreement.
The Petitioners argued that the Respondent instituted the action in court without
regard to the arbitration clause and without any objection from the Petitioner. In light
of this, the arbitration clause is void and the Court of First Instance should have heard
the action and not referred it to arbitration.
Pursuant to Article 203.1 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the parties have
agreed to arbitrate any disputes that may arise in relation to the performance of their
contract but failed to agree on arbitrators or had agreed on an arbitrator who was
then precluded from acting or disagreed over the appointment of an arbitrator, the

court originally competent to hear the dispute shall appoint whatever arbitrators are
required by normal litigation procedures. The Petitioner and the Respondent had
agreed under Clause 12 of their agreement that any dispute or difference arising
between the parties to the agreement would be referred to arbitration before a sole
arbitrator who was to be appointed. A dispute arose between the parties concerning
the performance of the agreement, and the Respondent asked the Petitioner to
perform its obligations or, should it refuse to pay the amount owing to the
Respondent, to appoint an arbitrator on its behalf within seven days in order to
commence arbitration. When the Petitioner refrained from nominating an arbitrator,
the Respondent approached the Court of First Instance to appoint an arbitrator.
Therefore, this argument is groundless.
Index
The Petitioners further argued that the award was rendered without terms of
reference. Article 203.3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: “The subject matter of
the dispute must be defined in the arbitration document or during the course of
proceedings even if the arbitrators are authorized to conduct conciliation; otherwise
the arbitration shall be deemed null and void.” This means that an agreement to
arbitrate may be set out in a contract or separately in an arbitration document. An
arbitration clause in a contract removes the need to establish terms of reference or an
arbitration document in order to validate the proceedings. Since the parties included
an arbitration agreement in their contract, there was no need for separate terms of
reference.
The Petitioners argued that the arbitrator’s acceptance of his appointment must be
evidenced in writing or recorded in the minutes of hearing. Neither party
communicated its acceptance to the arbitrator nor was such acceptance recorded in
the minutes of hearing. Moreover, the Petitioners argued that the arbitrator did not
Table of contents
have the witnesses take the oath. The arbitrator further accepted foreign documents
that were not accompanied by certified translations, despite the Petitioners’ insistence
on the production of the originals.
The arbitrator’s attendance at the hearings is sufficient to constitute an implicit

acceptance of his nomination and mandate. Furthermore, the minutes of the hearing
indicate that all the witnesses heard by the arbitrator had taken the oath, except for
the Respondent’s witness, who was not questioned by the arbitrator but by the
Petitioners’ attorney. While unsworn testimony is void, the arbitral award did not rely
on that witness’s testimony. Therefore, the Court rejects the Petitioners’ argument in
this regard.
Furthermore, while Article 45.4 of the Civil Procedure Code requires that documents
drafted in a foreign language be accompanied by certified translations into Arabic, the
court may rely on foreign documents after acquainting itself with their content, as
long as the other side does not object to the content or insist on an Arabic translation.
The issue is not one of public policy and as long as the other side accepts the
documents and discusses their content, it cannot then claim that an award that relied
on those documents is void.

Case No. 35 of 2010 issued on 27 April 2010 – Commercial
FUJAIRAH FEDERAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Case No. 35 of 2010 issued on 27 April 2010 – Commercial
Headnote Arbitration – Enforcement – Foreign awards – New York Convention
Summary The Petitioner is a vessel owner who entered into vessel lease agreements with the
of facts Respondent in which they agreed to refer disputes arising from the agreements to
arbitration in London.
After a dispute arose due to the Respondent’s failure to pay delay fines as per the
agreements, the Petitioner referred the matter to arbitration. The arbitration was duly
conducted in London by a sole arbitrator, who issued two awards against the
Table of contents
Respondent. Since the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom are both
signatories to the New York Convention of 1958 on the enforcement of foreign awards,
the Petitioner sought an order enforcing the arbitral award issued in London on 15
February 2006 under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms.
Held It is a well-established principle in the UAE courts to refrain from reviewing the
substantive merits of an arbitration award when hearing an action to recognise and
enforce it.
Ratified treaties and conventions between the UAE and other states are applicable as
internal legislation with respect to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, subject
to national courts verifying that the necessary criteria are met before confirming any
award.
Judgment According to Article 212.4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the arbitral award shall be
issued in the UAE; otherwise, the rules pertaining to foreign arbitral awards shall apply.
Article 215.1 of the Code states that an arbitral award shall not be enforced unless it
has been ratified by the court with which it was filed after reviewing the award and
the terms of reference and ascertaining that there is no impediment to enforcement.
It is a well-settled principle of judicial construction that the court shall not review the
Index
merits of the arbitral award when hearing an action to ratify it (Appeal No. 556 of 24,
issued on 19 April 2005) and that ratified treaties and conventions between the UAE
and other states are applicable as internal legislation with respect to the enforcement
of foreign arbitral awards subject to national courts verifying that the necessary
criteria are met before confirming any award (Appeal No. 764 of 24 issued on 7 April
2005 Hearing).
The New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards was ratified in the United Arab Emirates pursuant to Federal Decree
No. 43 of 2006 with effect from 19 November 2006. The awards were rendered in the
United Kingdom, which is also a signatory to the New York Convention of 1958.
Upon review of the arbitration clause and the two awards that form the subject of the
ratification claim, the Court found that there is no impediment to the enforcement of
the awards. The Respondent was summoned but no attorney appeared on its behalf
to submit any objection, pleading or defence.
The Court accordingly granted the Petitioner’s claims and hereby recognised the
awards.


Petition No. 679 of 2010 issued on 16 June 2011 – Commercial
Summary The Petitioner filed a commercial action against the Respondent before the Abu
of facts Dhabi Court of First Instance in which the Petitioner requested the ratification of a
foregin arbitration award issued in Paris under the auspices of the ICC Rules.
The Respondent argued that the award contradicted a criminal judgment in which the
Petitioner had been ordered to pay a fine of AED 5,000 for fraud.
Index
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance decided to defer its judgment pending
resolution of the criminal case. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a certificate issued
by the public prosecution in which it was found that the criminal case had lapsed due
to expiry of time. The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance consequently issued its
judgment and refused to ratify the award. The Petitioner appealed to the Abu Dhabi
Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed a petition before the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation.
The provisions of the New York Convention apply to the enforcement of foreign
awards in the UAE. Articles 235 and 236 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code would only
apply in the event that the foreign award was issued in a country that was not a
signatory to the New York Convention or some other international treaty ratified by
both the UAE and the foreign jurisdiction.
Table of contents
Judgment The challenge was based on the ground that the court misapplied the law in
upholding the decision of the Court of First Instance, which rejected the ratification of
the award on the basis of the non-fulfilment of one of the conditions laid down in
Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Code. In doing so, it ignored Article 3 of the New
York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards (the “Convention”). The Convention, to which the UAE is a signatory, requires
its contracting parties to refrain from applying stricter provisions for recognizing and
enforcing foreign awards than those they apply for ratifying and executing domestic
arbitral awards.
The Court of Cassation stated that Articles 235, 236 and 238 of the Civil Procedure
Code require courts to abide by the provisions of any international conventions
entered into between the UAE and other foreign states and any international treaties
that have been ratified by the UAE and have thus become binding.
Conversely, if a foreign award was rendered in a state that is not a signatory to an

international convention or a treaty entered by the UAE, the court of enforcement in
the UAE must ascertain that the conditions set forth in Article 235 have been met.
Since the UAE ratified the New York Convention in 2006, its provisions have become
mandatory laws of the state, even though they run counter to previous laws.
The Court of Appeal referred to Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Code instead of the
Convention and refused to ratify the award on the basis that one of the conditions of
Article 235 was not fulfilled. In doing so, the Court of Appeal erred in the application
of the law.


Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Independence and impartiality of

arbitrators
Summary The Respondent initiated legal action before the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance
of facts requesting the ratification of an arbitral award. The Court ratified the arbitral award
and rendered it enforceable.
The judgment was appealed by the Petitioner before the Court of Appeal, which
upheld the lower court’s decision in ratifying the award. Subsequently, the Petitioner
Table of contents
challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision before Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation.
Held The appealed judgment was overturned.
The independence and impartiality of an arbitrator – being a judge settling disputes –

is a fundamental guarantee in proceedings before arbitrators. The rules and
procedures relating to challenges against arbitrators pertain to public order and
cannot be departed from by the parties.
Judgment The Petitioner argued that the lower courts refused to annul the award despite a prior
work relationship between the arbitrator appointed by the Respondent and its legal
representative that affected the arbitrator’s impartiality. The lower courts stated that
the partiality of arbitrators was not one of the conditions listed in Article 216 of the
Civil Procedure Code for setting aside an arbitral award and that, in any event, the
Petitioner had not initiated the proper proceedings to dismiss the arbitrator.
The Court of Cassation held that this claim was admissible. Article 114 of the Civil
Procedure Code lays down the conditions under which a judge is deemed unfit to
hear an action even if no challenge is filed by the parties. One of these conditions is
when the judge is the agent of one of the parties in his private business. In light of this,
a judge must be recused if there is a prior relation between the judge and one of the
Index
parties without either party having to issue a formal challenge. Any agreement
otherwise contravenes public order rules.
The Petitioner in this case argued before the lower courts that the arbitrator
appointed by the Respondent worked for the Respondent’s legal representative and
that this circumstance affected his impartiality. The lower courts ruled that the
Petitioner should have challenged the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings
and that under Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code it is not permissible to request
the setting aside of an award on the basis of the impartiality of arbitrators.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 216 provide that it is permissible for the parties to
request the setting aside of an arbitral award while the court is considering its
ratification if the award was issued by arbitrators not fulfilling the legal requisites or if
there is a nullity that affected the award. A relationship or connection between one of
the arbitrators and either party to the dispute renders that arbitrator unfit to hear the
dispute as said relationship or connection affects his impartiality.
Accordingly, the appealed judgment was overturned.


Petition No. 1283 of 2010 issued on 11 October 2011 – Civil
Headnote Arbitration – Defence of an arbitration agreement – Jurisdiction
Summary The Petitioner filed an action against the Respondent before the Abu Dhabi Court of
of facts First Instance requesting the Court to order the Respondent to pay back sums
received in return for reserving two residential units pursuant to an agreement that
they had entered into.
The Court of First Instance ordered the Respondent to pay back the sums received
from the Petitioner. Both the Respondent and the Petitioner appealed the judgment
Index
before the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment and dismissed
the case due to the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.
It is settled law under Article 203.5 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code that, if the parties
agree to arbitrate a dispute, it will not be permissible to bring the action before the
courts. Nevertheless, if one of the parties does have recourse to the courts and brings
an action without regard to the arbitration clause, and the other party does not object
at the first hearing, it will be permissible for the court to try the action, and the
arbitration clause will be deemed inoperative.
Judgment The Respondent argued that the Court of Cassation should not accept the appeal on
the grounds that it was filed outside the statutory time limit for appealing to the Court
of Cassation.
Table of contents
The Court referred to Article 176 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code, which provides that
the time limit for an appeal in cassation is 60 days commencing from the day
following the date of the judgment and that, if the last day of the time limit for appeal
falls on an official public holiday, it is permissible to file the appeal the following day.
Since the Petitioner filed the appeal on a Saturday, which is an official public holiday,
and since the appeal was registered the following day, it is deemed to have been filed
within the statutory time frame. The Respondent’s argument in this regard was
therefore rejected.
The Petitioner challenged the lower court’s judgment for contradicting the law and
erring in its application of the law on the grounds that the Court of Appeal dismissed
the case due to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate despite the fact that the
Respondent did not object to the Petitioner’s action before the Court of First Instance.
The Court of Cassation noted that it is stipulated in Article 203.5 of the Civil Procedure
Code that, if the parties agree to arbitrate a dispute, it will not be permissible to bring
the action before the courts. Nevertheless, if one of the parties does have recourse to
the courts and brings an action without regard to the arbitration clause and the other
party does not object at the first hearing, it will be permissible for the court to try the
action, and the arbitration clause will be deemed inoperative.
The Court construed from the documents presented that the Court of First Instance
rejected the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections based on the arbitration
agreement on the basis that the Respondent submitted its defence before the Court
of First Instance during the second hearing, although its legal representative attended
the first hearing and requested adjournment of the hearing to respond to the
Petitioner’s submission.

The Court of Cassation clarified that the jurisdictional objections should be raised at
the first hearing, i.e., the first hearing before the court at which the parties are allowed
to argue and which is attended by the defendant or his representative, not the first
date scheduled by the court to hear the case. It makes no difference if the attorney
applies for an adjournment to submit his arguments and response to the action or to
comment on a memorandum submitted by his opponent, because the requirement is
that he should rely on the arbitration clause at the first hearing, whether or not that
party submitted an argument on the merits of the dispute. The Respondent’s attorney
did not rely on the arbitration agreement at the first hearing. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeal erred in its decision to overturn the Court of First Instance’s decision.
Table of contents
The Court of Appeal’s judgment was overturned and the case referred back to the
lower court.
Index


Petitions No. 83, 91 and 96 of 2011 issued on 23 November 2011
Headnote Arbitration – Language of the award – Party autonomy
Summary The Petitioner initiated an action before the Court of First Instance for the ratification
of facts of an arbitration award issued under the rules of the Abu Dhabi Commercial
Conciliation and Arbitration Centre. The Respondent initiated a counter claim
requesting the annulment of the arbitration award based on the merits of the case
and on an alleged misapplication of the law. The Court of First Instance annulled the
award stating that it was drafted in English and that an Arabic draft was not provided.
Index
The Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the judgment of the
Court of First Instance. The Petitioner filed two petitions for cassation (Nos. 83 and 91
of 2011) alleging misapplication of the law by the lower courts, while the Respondent
filed Petition No. 96 of 2011 requesting the Court to order the Petitioner to pay the
arbitration fees and to dismiss the Petition’s challenge before the Court of Cassation.
The three challenges were submitted before the Court of Cassation through one of its
chambers, which examined all three of them in one session.
Held The present petition was dismissed.
The Court of Cassation accepted Petitions Nos. 83 and 91 of 2011 but dismissed
Petition No. 96 of 2011.
An arbitration held outside the court does not follow the same procedural rules as
those to be followed in an arbitration held through the court. The arbitrator in an
arbitration outside the court is not obliged to deposit the award with the clerk’s office.
Table of contents
However, he or she is obliged to deliver a copy of the award to each party.

Judgment Petitions Nos. 83 and 91 of 2011
The Petitioner challenged the lower courts’ decisions, which annulled the award for
the reason that it was not translated into Arabic, on the grounds that this was not a
requirement under the arbitration rules to which the parties had agreed, namely the
arbitration rules of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre,
which therefore applied alongside the relevant provisions of the UAE Civil Procedure
Code and with all amendments or additions that might be agreed by the parties later
on. Also, the parties agreed before the arbitration tribunal during a hearing on 14
September 2009 that the arbitration procedures and arbitration award had to employ
the English language.
The Petitioner argued that the law has made it permissible for the parties to submit
the documents and the award relating to the dispute between them to the courts in
the language in which they were issued, as long as they are attached to a legalized
translation into Arabic. The challenging party has submitted both the arbitration
agreement and the arbitration award, translated into Arabic. Furthermore the
challenged ruling annulled the arbitration award on the basis that it violated the
arbitration clause that is contained in Article 21 of the contract, although that article
provides that the arbitration would be conducted in English. The Petitioner also
argues that the law did not stipulate that the award should include a draft, and an
original copy as stated by the challenged ruling. This ruling shall therefore be revoked.
Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that arbitration can take place
through a judicial body or through ad hoc or institutional arbitration. Arbitration
through the court takes place on the basis of a judicial decision based on the parties’
agreement. In such cases, the procedures that have to be followed are laid down in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 213. In the case of arbitration conducted outside the

Petitions No. 83, 91 and 96 of 2011 issued on 23 November 2011
court, the procedures laid down in paragraph 3 of Article 213 apply. In such cases, the
arbitrator is not required to deposit the award with the office of the court clerk of the
court. However, the arbitrator is required to deliver a copy of the award to each party.
Thereafter, each party may take measures in order to ratify or annul the award in
accordance with ordinary procedures. The procedural rules of arbitration are based on
one source of authority, namely the will of the litigant parties.
In the agreement concluded between them, the parties agreed to refer any dispute
that may arise between them to arbitration, provided that the applicable law would be
the law of Abu Dhabi and the law of the UAE and that the conciliation and arbitration
procedures of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Abu Dhabi would also
Table of contents
apply. Furthermore, the parties’ agreement provides that all procedures and all
documents exchanged or submitted have to be drafted in English.
Accordingly, the court held that the Petitioner’s argument is sound, and the judgment
of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
Petition No. 96 of 2011
In Petition No. 96 of 2011, the Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment on
the ground that it refused to order the Respondent to pay the arbitration costs on the
ground that this constituted a new request.
Article 165.3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that new requests are inadmissible
before appeal. From the perspective of this article, new requests are requests that
exceed or differ from the ones that were submitted to the Court of First Instance
regarding the same subject and/or parties.
Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.
Index

Dubai Cassation Court
DUBAI CASSATION COURT

Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Public order
Summary The Respondent purchased a real estate unit from the Petitioner. In their sale and
of facts purchase agreement, the parties agreed to refer future disputes arising from their
agreement to arbitration.
A dispute arose that was referred to arbitration. On 6 January 2010, the sole arbitrator
issued an arbitral award annulling the sale and purchase agreement and ordering the
Petitioner to return the sum paid by the Respondent.
Index
The Respondent brought an action before the Dubai First Instance Court requesting
the ratification of the arbitral award. The Petitioner argued that the arbitral award was
null and void on the grounds that it was issued without an arbitration deed and
because the sole arbitrator had violated the Petitioner’s right to defence. The Court of
First Instance ratified the award, and the Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First
Instance’s judgment. Consequently, the Petitioner filed the petition to cassation.
It is established by the practice of this Court that the Court of Cassation may raise
grounds relating to public order as long as the court of substance, when rendering its
judgment, had all the necessary elements to issue its judgment based on those
grounds.
It also follows from Article 203.4 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code that it is not
Table of contents
permissible for parties to agree to arbitrate on matters regarding which conciliation is

not permissible.
Matters relating to the sale of off-plan units have been regulated by the legislator in
Article 3 of Law No. 13 of 2008 regulating the Interim Real Estate Register in the
Emirate of Dubai. Matters relating to the registration of off-plan units in the Interim
Real Estate Register may not be the subject matter of arbitration, as this is
contradictory to public policy.
Judgment Matters relating to the sale of off-plan units have been regulated by the legislator in
Article 3 of Law No. 13 of 2008 regulating the Interim Real Estate Register in the
Emirate of Dubai. Matters relating to the registration of off-plan units in the Interim
Real Estate Register may not be the subject matter of arbitration, as this is
contradictory to public policy.
The dispute submitted to the sole arbitrator is governed by Article 3 of Law No. 13 of
2008 and cannot be settled by arbitration. The award rendered by the sole arbitrator
is therefore null and void. The Court can annul the award of its own motion since it
concerns a matter of public policy.
The award annulling the sale and purchase agreement due to the Petitioner’s failure to
register the unit within the time frame required by Article 3.2 of Law No. 13 of 2008
regulating the Interim Real Estate Register in the Emirate of Dubai should be annulled
on the grounds that it concerned a matter that is related to public policy.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is overturned and the award
annulled.

Petition No. 353 of 2011 issued on 24 August 2011

Petition No. 353 of 2011 issued on 24 August 2011
Headnote Arbitration – Separability of arbitration agreement
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a school management and
of facts investment agreement, which they bilaterally agreed to terminate at a later date. A
dispute arose in relation to the deposit cheque that was provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent requested the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance to appoint three
arbitrators to settle the dispute on the basis of the arbitration agreement contained in
the agreement. The Petitioner objected to the Respondent’s request on the ground
Table of contents
that the agreement had been terminated.
The Court of First Instance appointed three arbitrators, who issued an award that was
ratified by the Court of First Instance. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeal, which overturned the judgment of the Court of First Instance and annulled
the award.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition to cassation before the Court of Cassation,
which overturned the Court of Appeal decision and returned the case to the Court of
Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the termination of the agreement by the
parties did not terminate the arbitration agreement.
The Petitioner then filed the petition to cassation.

Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code specified the conditions in which the parties
can request setting aside an arbitral award. Such conditions are limited by the law and
may not be departed from.
The termination or expiry of an agreement does not entail the termination of the
arbitration agreement included in it unless the arbitration clause or agreement is
Index
invalid.
Judgment The Petitioner argued that Court of First Instance exceeded its power by deciding to
extend the parties’ agreement while the Respondent submitted in all phases of the
dispute that the parties had agreed to terminate the agreement, which indicated their
intention to terminate the arbitration clause.
This argument was rejected by the court. The general idea behind Articles 212 and 216
of the Civil Procedure Code is that arbitration is based on the parties’ intention and
agreement to avoid long proceedings before courts. When conducting the
proceedings, arbitrators are only bound by the procedural rules that are provided for
in the arbitration chapter of the Civil Procedure Code. Furthermore, arbitrators shall
rule in accordance with the law unless authorized by the parties to conciliate, in which
case they are not bound by the law except for matters relating to public order.
In addition, the legislator has limited the conditions in which the parties can request
the setting aside of an arbitral award. The Petitioner’s arguments are not included in
the conditions provided for in the law and therefore should be rejected.
The Court of Appeal’s decision that the termination of the agreement does not
terminate the arbitration agreement that is contained therein was correct.

Dubai Court of Appeal
DUBAI COURT OF APPEAL

Summary of facts:
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into an agreement on 22 June 2007
of facts whereby the Respondent was granted broadcasting rights for six-day cricket matches
in the Middle East in return for a licence fee. The parties had agreed that any dispute
arising under the agreement would be submitted to mandatory arbitration in
Singapore under the SIAC Rules.
Index
A dispute arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent and was referred to SIAC.
An arbitral award was rendered on 28 September 2010 in favour of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner commenced proceedings before the Dubai Court of First Instance
against the Respondent seeking to have the award recognized, enforced and vested
with an executory formula pursuant to the New York Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
On 18 May 2011, the Dubai Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner’s request.
The Petitioner appealed the judgment seeking an order overturning the lower court’s
decision.
Held The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s judgment.
It is a well-established principle of the Dubai Court of Cassation and Articles 235, 236
and 238 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code that international treaties ratified by the
Table of contents
UAE must be enforced when it comes to the enforcement of foreign judgments and
foreign arbitral awards, even if the conditions set forth in Article 235 of the Code have
not been met.
Judgment It follows from Articles 235, 236 and 238 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code that UAE
courts are allowed to order the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in accordance
with the terms and procedural requirements of these articles.
It is also a well-established principle of the Dubai Court of Cassation and the

aforementioned articles that international treaties ratified by the UAE must be
enforced when it comes to the enforcement of foreign judgments and foreign arbitral
awards, even if the conditions set forth in Article 235 of the Code have not been met.
Both the UAE and Singapore are signatories of the New York Convention. Article 3 of
the Convention stipulates: “Each state party shall recognize arbitral awards as binding
and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the
award is relied upon.”
The Petitioner has provided all the necessary documents and evidence to have the
award recognized and enforced pursuant to Article 4 of the New York Convention.
Furthermore, the Respondent, who failed to appear before the arbitral tribunal, the
Court of First Instance and this Court, has not set forth any argument against the
enforcement of the award pursuant to Article 5 of the New York Convention.
Therefore, the award can be recognised and enforced.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is overturned.


Headnote Arbitration – Arbitrator acting as a mediator – Grounds for annulment of award
Summary The Petitioner initiated legal proceedings against the Respondent before Abu Dhabi
of facts Court of First Instance requesting the Court to ratify the arbitral award issued by the
arbitrator under the auspices of the Abu Dhabi Conciliation Commercial Arbitration
Centre and render it enforceable.
The Respondent filed a counterclaim requesting the Court to set aside the arbitral
award on the grounds that it did not include the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and
Table of contents
contravened Article 212.6 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code.
The Court of First Instance ratified the award in question and dismissed the
Respondent’s counterclaim.
The Respondent appealed before the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, which ruled that
the appeal was not permissible. Consequently, the Petitioner filed the present petition
to cassation.
Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that arbitral awards are not subject to
appeal. However, the courts’ decisions ratifying or annulling arbitral awards are subject
to appeal by either party, with the exception of decisions ratifying or annulling an
award that was issued by an arbitrator who was explicitly authorized by the parties to
conduct conciliation , decisions relating to arbitrations in which the parties expressly
waived their right to appeal and decisions relating to arbitrations in which the amount
in dispute does not exceed AED 10,000.
The parties’ agreement to authorize an arbitrator to settle their dispute must be

explicit, leaving no doubt as to their intention to provide the arbitrator with powers to
adjudicate their dispute.
Index
Judgment The Respondent argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision that the appeal was not
admissible on the ground that arbitral awards are not subject to appeal is wrong.
The Court of Cassation held that the Petitioner’s argument was with grounds.
According to Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code, arbitral awards are not subject to
appeal. However, the courts’ decisions ratifying or annulling arbitral awards are subject
to appeal by either party, with the exception of decisions ratifying or annulling an
award that was issued by an arbitrator who was authorized by the parties to conduct
conciliation, decisions relating to arbitrations in which the parties expressly waived
their right to appeal and decisions relating to arbitrations in which the amount in
dispute does not exceed AED 10,000.
Given that arbitrators are not bound by rules of law, except those relating to public
order, and that an award is not subject to appeal, the parties’ agreement to have their
disputes settled by arbitration must be explicit in their agreement and not be
presumed therefrom.
An arbitrator’s authority to arbitrate is different than a mediator’s authority to mediate

in that the latter is not entitled to render a binding decision. A mediator can only
recommend methods to settle the dispute to the parties, and if the parties reach a
settlement the mediator’s mandate expires. His recommendations are not binding,
and the parties may choose to disregard them.

It is established that the parties’ agreement entitled the arbitrator to mediate their
dispute during the arbitration proceedings. This indicates that the parties explicitly
agreed to allow the arbitrator to mediate the dispute before rendering an award and
that they did not agree to provide him with the authority to settle the dispute in
conciliation. The fact that they referred to Articles 212.2 and 217.3 of the Civil
Procedure Code does not entail that the parties agreed to have the arbitrator settle
their dispute.
The lower court’s decision that the parties’ agreement to entitle the arbitrator to
mediate their dispute entails an explicit agreement to authorize him to settle the
dispute contravenes the law.
Index

Table of contents

Petition No. 814 of 2011 issued on 21 December 2011 – Commercial

Petition No. 814 of 2011 issued on 21 December 2011 – Commercial
Headnote Arbitration – Commercial agency agreements – Jurisdiction
Summary The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agency agreement pursuant to
of facts which the Respondent would market and sell the Petitioner’s products within the
UAE. The parties’ commercial agency agreement had been registered in the
Commercial Agencies Register. The agreement contained an arbitration clause
pursuant to which the parties agreed to refer any disputes arising out of the
agreement to arbitration. A dispute arose and was referred to arbitration. An award
Table of contents
was rendered on 1 July 2010.
The Respondent filed a case against the Petitioner before the Abu Dhabi Court of
First Instance requesting the enforcement of an arbitration award.
The Court of First Instance rendered a judgment ratifying the award. The Petitioner
then submitted an appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment, which was
rejected by the Court of Appeal. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.
According to Law No. 18 of 1981, as amended by Law No. 14 of 1988, disputes arising
out of commercial agency agreements that are registered in the Commercial Agencies
Register cannot be resolved by arbitration. The UAE courts retain jurisdiction in
disputes relating to these contracts.
Judgment The Court of Cassation held that the intent of the legislator when enacting Articles 3
and 6 of Federal Law No. 18, as amended by Federal Law No. 14 of 1988, was that the
UAE courts retain jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the performance of
commercial agency agreements. Equally, the UAE courts have jurisdiction to annul any
contrary agreement, such as an arbitration agreement, as long as the commercial
agency agreement is registered in the Commercial Agencies Register.
Index
The judgment of the Court of Appeal determined that parties to commercial agency
agreements were permitted to agree to arbitrate their disputes. The Court of
Cassation held that this determination was wrong because it violated Article 6 of
Federal Law No. 18.
The Court of Cassation further held that the commercial agency agreement in
question had been registered in the Commercial Agency Register. The fact that the
Respondent had sought to unilaterally strike the agreement from the register did not
affect the principle that commercial agency disputes arising out of registered
commercial agency agreements are not arbitrable. The relevant fact was that the
commercial agency agreement in question had been registered.


Petition No. 14 of 2012 issued on 16 September 2012
Headnote Arbitration – Grounds for annulment of award – Public order – DIAC arbitration rules
Summary The Petitioner, a real estate developer, entered into a sale and purchase agreement for
of facts a property with the Respondent. As the Petitioner defaulted in its obligation under the
agreement, the Respondent initiated arbitration under the DIAC arbitration rules.
The sole arbitrator ruled that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid on the
ground that the property was not registered in the Interim Real Estate Register in the
Emirate of Dubai, as required by Article 3 of Law No. 13 of 2008, and ordered the
Index
Petitioner to return the sum paid by the Respondent.
The Respondent filed an action before the Dubai Court of First Instance seeking the
ratification and enforcement of the award. The Petitioner objected to the ratification
of the award. The Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner’s objection and
ratified the award. The Petitioner then appealed the decision of the Court of First
Instance, and the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the present petition to cassation.

Article 216 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code allows the parties – in certain
circumstances outlined in the article – to request the setting aside of an award when
the court is hearing an action to ratify it. However, despite the rule that the courts will
not review the merits of the case when considering a request for the award’s
Table of contents
ratification or nullification and despite the fact that a violation of public order is not
one of the grounds listed in Article 216, the courts will look into the merits of a case to
examine the irregularity of the decision in light of the law if the arbitrator exceeded
the limits of his jurisdiction by resolving a matter relating to public order.
The concept of public order relates to the fundamental interests of a society and
forms the basis for the social, political, economic and ethical rules that are issued by
the state. These public order rules must be respected in all actions and rulings.
Article 3 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code implies that provisions relating to the
circulation of wealth and individual ownership are rules and principles upon which
society is based. These rules and principles also include the rules pertaining to the
registration of property in the Interim Real Estate Register in the Emirate of Dubai. As
such, any dispute relating to this issue falls under the jurisdiction of the courts and
cannot be resolved through arbitration.
Judgment The appealed judgment erred in upholding the lower court’s judgment ratifying the
award that annulled the sale and purchase agreement in application of Law No. 13 of
2008 on the basis that the property was not registered in the Interim Real Estate
Register in the Emirate of Dubai as required by Article 3 of Law No. 13.
As such, the sole arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by ruling on a matter relating to
public order that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.


Headnote Arbitration – Enforcement – Foreign awards – New York Convention – DIFC/LCIA
Summary The Respondent in Cassation filed a legal action before Dubai Court of First Instance
of facts seeking confirmation of two arbitral awards issued against the Petitioner in Cassation
in relation to a dispute that had arisen out of a purchase agreement. The arbitration
clause provided for arbitration in London under the DIFC-LCIA rules. The Petitioner in
Cassation objected to the Respondent’s request for ratification, arguing that the
awards were void on various grounds. Among other things, it claimed that the
Table of contents
arbitration agreement was issued by a person who did not have the capacity to agree
to arbitration and that the awards contained several procedural irregularities.
The Court of First Instance ratified the two awards and confirmed the provisional
attachment filed by the Respondent in Cassation
The Respondent in Cassation appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the
lower court’s judgment. Therefore the present petition to cassation was filed by the
Petitioner.
According to Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006, under which the UAE acceded to the
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, and Article 238 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code, when it comes to foreign
arbitral awards issued outside the state, the national courts’ jurisdiction is limited to
ensuring that such awards do not contravene the above-mentioned decree and to
ensuring their compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements listed in
Article 5 of the New York Convention of 1958.
Judgment The Petitioner in Cassation argued that the agreement between the parties was void,
as it was not signed by the manager of the company who was the authorized
Index
signatory. During proceedings before the lower court, the Respondent in Cassation
requested that the Petitioner produce the original of the agreement, but the latter
failed to do so and only submitted a faxed copy, alleging that the agreement was
concluded via fax.
The Petitioner’s argument that the arbitration agreement was not signed by an
authorized person was rejected as it failed to provide evidence in support of this
argument when given the opportunity to do so by the lower courts. Furthermore,
Article 5 of the New York Convention of 1958 places the burden of proof on the party
claiming the annulment of the award, which in this case is the Petitioner in Cassation,
who failed to prove that the signatory of the arbitration agreement lacked authority to
sign it.
The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of First Instance’s decision that the courts’
supervision was limited to ensuring that arbitral awards were not issued in
contradiction of Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006, under which the UAE acceded to the
New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards. The Petitioner’s argument that the New York Convention does not preclude
an action for setting aside an arbitral award and its request to set aside the above-
mentioned awards pursuant to Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to arbitration and the procedures
to be followed by the courts when ratifying arbitral awards, in particular Articles 212,
213 and 215, provide that only domestic awards fall within the jurisdiction of the
national courts. In the case of foreign arbitral awards, irrespective of whether they are

capable of being enforced in the country where they were issued, the courts are
compelled to apply the rules concerning foreign arbitral awards.
However, Article 238 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that international
conventions that have become enforceable in the UAE by virtue of their ratification
shall apply to disputes concerning the enforcement of foreign court decisions and
arbitral awards as domestic law.
Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006, which was published in the Official Gazette on 28
June 2006, ratified the UAE’s accession to the New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. Therefore, its
provisions are applicable to this dispute.
Index
The two arbitral awards that form the subject of the present dispute were issued in
London in accordance to the New York Convention. Therefore, the UAE courts’
jurisdiction in relation to these arbitral awards is limited to ensuring that they do not
contravene Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006.
The Court of Appeal’s findings, supported by sound reasons and adequate evidence,
are not inconsistent with the law. The Petitioner cannot argue that the contract
containing the arbitration clause is void because it was not signed by the company
manager, since it did not substantiate this defence before the trial court as required by
Article 5 of the New York Convention, which places the burden of proof on the party
contesting the documents presented by the other party. Furthermore, the Petitioner
has not proved that the arbitrator’s failure to swear in the witness contravened the law
of the country where the award was issued, that the award was contrary to the
arbitration clause or that the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in
Table of contents
accordance with the agreement of the parties.
In ruling that the UAE courts have no jurisdiction to set aside foreign arbitral awards,
the Court of Appeal reached the right conclusion as a matter of law and cannot be
faulted for finding that jurisdiction belongs to the arbitrator that issued the awards.
The Court of Cassation can make up for incomplete reasoning and rectify errors
without having to reverse the decision. The effect of Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006 is
that all UAE courts shall recognize and enforce such awards in the territory where the
award is relied upon. Therefore, there is no basis for the Petitioner’s assertion that
jurisdiction over this action lies with the DIFC courts and that the arbitral award is
contrary to Islamic Sharia and public policy in the UAE because it awards usurious
interest.
It is settled in this Court that the prohibition on agreeing to usurious interest in any
type of civil or commercial transaction is limited to dealings between individuals and
does not extend to dealings between individuals and corporate entities, which can
agree with other corporate entities or individuals to charge conventional interest.
According to the documents submitted to the Court, the parties to the contract in
question are both corporate entities (namely LLCs), so any interest award is
permissible. The whole argument is thus baseless.

INDEX
INDEX
A Arbitrators Article 216 20, 23, 27, 37, 41, 45,

appointment 16, 17, 84, 97, 101 49, 55, 57, 59, 62, 68, 73, 75,
ADCCAC Rules 74 challenge 110 80, 82, 86, 94, 99, 104, 111, 117,
American Arbitration deliberation 37, 69, 73 122, 123, 131
Association 53 dismissal 66 Article 217 25, 62, 69, 86, 119,
immunity 66, 69 131
Annulment of award
impartiality 111 Article 218 37, 69, 131
competence of arbitrators 20
independence 111 Article 235 51, 110, 118
procedural defect 59
number 80 Article 236 53, 110, 118
public order 57, 75, 94, 116, 122
qualifications 55 Article 238 110, 123
time limits 23, 24, 27, 37, 45, 47,
recusal 20, 82 Commercial agency
75, 89, 105
B agreements 97, 121
Apparent authority 53
Appointment of arbitrators 16, D
C
17, 84, 97, 101
Deliberation of arbitrators 37,
Arbitration agreement Capacity to agree to 69, 73
apparent authority 53 arbitration 27, 52, 68, 77, 105
DIAC Arbitration Rules 122
capacity to sign 27, 52, 68, 77, Challenge to arbitrators 110
105 DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules 123
Challenge to award 27, 59
form 53 Dismissal of arbitrator 66
offer and acceptance 53 Civil Procedure Code
Article 203 33, 47, 53, 55, 62, Dissenting award 86
scope 15, 33, 66, 69, 89
separability 101, 117 64, 74, 77, 80, 101, 104, 105,
E
validity 20, 53 107, 112, 116, 127
Article 204 18, 33, 74, 80, 84, Enforcement of arbitration
Arbitration award
content 31, 49, 57, 59, 86, 89
97, 107, 127 award 109, 110, 118, 123
Article 205 127
dissent 86 Evidence Law 41, 55, 59
Article 206 55, 128
enforcement 109, 110, 118, 123
Article 207 20, 60, 128 F
interim 15
Article 208 27, 45, 99, 128
interpretation 103
Article 209 69, 80, 128 Federal Decree No. 43 of
majority 86
Article 210 23, 24, 45, 47, 75, 2006 109, 123
partial 57
89, 105, 129 Federal Law No. 18 of 1981 121
ratification 49, 51
Article 211 41, 129
Arbitration deed 66, 69 Fees 27, 37, 44, 55, 69
Article 212 20, 31, 41, 49, 55, 57,
59, 73, 86, 91, 99, 109, 117, 119, Foreign awards51, 109, 110, 118,
123, 129 123
Article 213 33, 36, 37, 51, 77, 84, Form of arbitration agreement
86, 99, 105, 114, 123, 130 53
Article 214 49, 77, 130
Article 215 51, 77, 104, 109, 123, Forgery 89
130

INDEX
G N U
Grounds for annulment 23, 37, New York Convention 51, 109, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
41, 49, 57, 59, 80, 82, 94, 99, 111, 110, 118, 123 41
116, 119, 122
O Unsworn testimony 107
H V
Oath 20, 41
Hearing attendance 73, 107 Offer and acceptance of Validity of arbitration
I agreement to arbitrate 53 agreement 53
ICC Rules 97, 110 P W
Immunity of arbitrators 66, 69 Partial award 57 X

Impartiality of arbitrators 111 Party autonomy 114
Independence of arbitrators 111 Penal code 41, 94 Y
Indivisibility of award 20 Place of arbitration51, 109, 118,
Z
123
Interim award 15
Interim real estate register 116, Power of Attorney 45, 53, 64,
77, 91, 94, 107
122
Interim relief 102, 103 Procedure, 20, 55, 59, 91, 99

Provisional measures 102, 103
J
Public order 57, 75, 94, 116, 122
Jurisdiction
arbitrator 16, 18, 27, 37, 64, 102, Q
104
Qualifications of arbitrators 55
court 16, 18, 33, 36, 51, 62, 64,
84, 103, 112, 121, 122 R
other forums 36
commercial agency Ratification of arbitration
agreements 97, 121 award 49, 51
Recusal of arbitrator 20, 82
K
Representation of parties 77,
L 91, 107
Language of the award 114 S

Law No. 13 of 2008 Scope
(Dubai) 116, 122 arbitration agreement 15, 33,
Law No. 20 of 2006 (Abu 66, 69, 89
Dhabi) 102 arbitration deed 66, 69
Separability 101, 117
M
Signature of arbitrators 31, 37,
Mediator 119 49, 55, 57, 69, 86, 89
Merits of a dispute 49, 55, 73, Summary action 102, 103

77, 80, 94, 103, 105, 109, 122
T
Minutes of arbitration hearings
99 Terms of reference 107
Time limits 23, 24, 27 37, 45, 47,
75, 89, 105

UAE PROVISIONS ON ARBITRATION
UAE Federal Laws | Civil Transactions and Procedures
FEDERAL LAW NO. 11/1992

Concerning the law of civil procedures
Book two - various procedures and litigations
TITLE THREE: ARBITRATION

As amended by Federal Law No. 30/2005 dated 30/11/2005:
Article 1. It shall be possible that the contractors, in general, state as a condition in the
203 principal contract or with a subsequent agreement, the exposition of what may
arise among them of litigations concerning the execution of a certain contract, to
one or more arbitrators, and it is also possible to agree on the arbitration in a
certain litigation under special conditions.
2. The agreement shall not be recorded except in writing.
3. The litigation’s facts should be designated in the arbitration document or during
the examination of the action even if the arbitrators were authorized for
reconciliation, otherwise the arbitration shall be void.
4. It shall not be possible to arbitrate in the matters in which the reconciliation is not
possible, and it shall not be valid to agree on the arbitration unless by those who
have the capacity of disposition in the litigated right.
5. If the litigant parties have agreed on the arbitration in some litigation, it shall not be
possible to prosecute an action therewith before the judiciary, however, if one of
the two litigant parties has resorted to prosecute the action without taking into
consideration the arbitration condition and the other party hasn’t objected at the
first sessions, the action should be examined and the arbitration condition shall be
void.
Article 1. If the litigation has occurred and the litigant parties haven’t agreed on the
204 arbitrators, or one or more arbitrators, who was agreed on, has abstained from the
work, has retired there from, has been dismissed there from, or his refusal has been
decided, or a hindrance has prevented his undertaking therein, and there were not
an agreement between the litigant parties concerning that, the court which is
principally authorized to examine that litigation shall appoint whoever shall be
needed of the arbitrators, and that on the grounds of a request from one of the
litigant parties, through the usual procedures of the action prosecution. The
number of those appointed by the court should be equal to the number agreed on
between the litigant parties or completing thereto.
2. It shall not be possible to appeal against the decision issued in that through any of
the proceedings of appeal.
Article It shall not be possible to authorize the arbitrators for the reconciliation unless they
205 were mentioned by their names in the agreement on the arbitration or in a
subsequent document.

Article 1. The arbitrator should not be minor, legally incompetent, deprived from his civil
206 rights because of a criminal penalty or bankrupt unless he has been rehabilitated.
2. If there were many arbitrators there numbers, in all circumstances, should be odd.
Article 1. The arbitrator’s acceptance should be in writing or by proving his acceptance in

207 the session minutes.
2. If the arbitrator has withdrawn, without serious reason, from his work after his
acceptance of the arbitration, it shall be possible to inflict indemnities on him.
3. He may not be dismissed except with the consent of all the litigant parties,
however the court which was principally authorized to examine the action, and on
the grounds of one the litigant parties request, may dismiss the arbitrator and give
order to appoint a substitute in his place in the manner in which he was appointed
in the beginning, and that in the case of proving that the arbitrator has intentionally
neglected the work according to the agreement of the arbitrators in spite of
drawing his attention, in writing, thereto.
4. It shall not be possible to refuse him from the arbitration except for reasons which
would occur or appear after his personal appointment, and the refusal shall be
requested for the same reasons for which the judge is refused or because of which
he shall not be competent to arbitrate. The refusal request shall be prosecuted to
the court which is principally authorized to examine the action within five days
from the litigant party’s notification with the arbitrator appointment or from the
date of the occurrence of the refusal reason or the acknowledgement thereof if it
were next to his notification with the arbitrator appointment. In all circumstances,
the refusal request shall not be accepted if the court’s decision has been issued
and the pleading in the case has been closed.
Article 1. The arbitrator shall, within thirty days at most from the acceptance of the
208 arbitration, notify the litigant parties with the date of the first session fixed to
examine the litigation and with its meeting place and that without obligation to the
rules settled in that law for the notification and he shall fix for them a date to
submit their documents, briefs and defense aspects.
2. It shall be possible to arbitrate according to what one side shall submit if the other
party failed to do on the appointed date.
3. If the arbitrators were many they should undertake, together, the investigation
procedures and each of them should sign on the reports.
Article 1. The litigation shall cease before the court if one of the reasons of the litigation
209 severance, set in this law, has emerged, and the severance shall result in its effects
which were legally set unless the action has been held for judgment.
2. If a priority matter which is not related to the arbitrator’s authority, or an appeal
against a paper falsification, or a criminal procedures have been taken in its
falsification, or in another criminal incident has been exposed during the
arbitration, the arbitrator shall stop his work until a final decision shall be issued
therein, and the arbitrator shall also stop his work in order to refer to the
authorized court’s president to proceed the following:
a. The sentence with the penalty legally set on the witnesses who fail to attend or
abstain from answering.
b. The decision charging the others to show a documents in his possession which
is necessary for the decision in the arbitration.
c. The decision in the judicial writs.

Article 1. If the litigant parties haven’t set, as a condition in the agreement, a date for the
210 arbitration the arbitrator should arbitrate within six month from the date of the
session of the first arbitration, otherwise anyone who wanted of the litigant parties
may prosecute the litigation to the court or may continue therein before the court
if it was prosecuted before that.
2. The litigant parties may agree, expressly or implicitly, to extend the appointed date,
by agreement or by law, and they may authorizing the arbitrator to extend it to a
certain date and the court may, according to the request of the arbitrator or one of
the litigant parties, prolong the time-limits appointed in the preceding clause to the
period which it shall find adequate for deciding in the litigation.
3. The date shall be suspended as far as the litigation is suspended or severed before
the arbitrator and its progression shall be resumed from the date of the arbitrator’s
acknowledgment of the extinguishment of the suspension or the severance’s
reason, and if the rest of the time-limit were a month it shall be extended to a
month.
Article The arbitrators should administer an oath on the witnesses and everyone who shall
211 perjure before the arbitrators shall be considered a committer of the crime of perjury.
Article 1. The arbitrator shall deliver his decision without obligation to the pleading
212 procedures except what has been stipulated in this chapter and the procedures
concerning the litigant parties’ action and hearing their defense’s aspects, and
enabling them to submit their documents, however, the litigant parties may agree
on certain procedures according to which the arbitrator should proceed.
2. The arbitrator’s decision shall be according to the rules of the law unless if it were
authorized with the reconciliation, then it shall not be obliged with such rules
except with those related to the public order.
3. The rules related to the summary execution shall be applied on the arbitrator’s
decisions.
4. The arbitrator’s judgment should be delivered in the state of the United Arab
Emirates, otherwise the rules set for the arbitrators’ decisions delivered in a foreign
country shall be followed therein.
5. The arbitrators’ decision shall be delivered with a majority of opinions and it should
be written together with the contradictory opinion, and it should particularly
include a copy of the arbitration agreement and a resume of the litigant parties’
statements, their documents, the decision’s reason and its pronunciation, its
delivery date, its delivery place, the arbitrators’ signatures, and if one or more of
the arbitrators has refused to sign the decision that should be mentioned therein,
and the decision shall be valid if the majority of the arbitrators have signed it.
6. The decision shall be compiled in Arabic unless the litigant parties have agreed
otherwise, in such case, an official translation should be attached thereto when it is
deposited.
7. The decision shall be considered delivered from the date of the arbitrators’
signature thereon after writing it.

Article 1. In case of the arbitration proceeded through the court, the arbitrators should
213 deposit the decision with the original of the arbitration record, the reports and the
documents in the clerk’s office of the court authorized principally to examine the
action, and that shall be within the fifteen days following the decision’s delivery
and they should deposit a copy of the decision in the clerk’s office of the court to
deliver them to each party side and that within fifteen days from depositing the
original and the clerk’s office of the court shall compile a report with that deposit
to manifest it to the judge or the division manager, according to the circumstances,
in order to appoint a session within fifteen days to authenticate the decision and
the two parties shall be notified therewith.
2. If the arbitration were incoming in an appellate case the deposit shall be in the
clerk’s office of the court authorized principally to examine the appeal.
3. As for the arbitration which takes place between the litigant parties outside the
court, the arbitrators should deliver a copy of the decision to each party within five
days from the delivery of the arbitration decision and the court shall examine the
authentication or the nullity of the decision according to the request of one of the
litigant parties through the usual procedures of the action prosecution.
Article The court may, during the examination of the authentication request of the arbitrators’
214 decision, return it to them in order to examine what they have failed to arbitrate in the
arbitration matters therein or to clarify the decision if it were not definite in a way that
makes it impossible to execute, and the arbitrators should, in both cases, deliver their
decision within three months from the date of their notification with the decision
unless the law shall decide otherwise.
It is not possible to appeal against its decision except with the final sentence delivered
with the authentication of the sentence or its invalidation.
Article 1. The arbitrators’ decision shall not be executed except if the court in which clerk’s
215 office the decision was deposited, has authenticated it, and that after looking into
the decision and the arbitration document and verifying that there is no prohibition
to execute it, and such court shall be authorized to amend the material errors in
the arbitrators’ decision according to the request of the concerned persons
through the proceedings set for amending the arbitrations.
2. The execution judge shall be authorized with all that concerns the execution of the
arbitrators’ decision.

Article 1. The litigant parties may request the nullity of the arbitrators’ decision when the
216 court examines its authentication and that shall be in the following circumstances:
a. If it has been delivered without an arbitration report or delivered according to a
void document or a document that has been extinguished by the failure to
observe the date or if the arbitrator has gone beyond the document’s limits.
b. If the decision has been delivered by arbitrators who were not assigned
according to the law or it has been delivered by some of them who were not
allowed to give the decision in the absence of others, or delivered according to
an arbitration document in which the litigation facts have not been determined,
or delivered by a person who had not the capacity of the arbitration agreement,
or by an arbitrator who did not fulfill the judicial conditions.
c. If a nullity in the decision or a nullity in the procedures which has affected the
decision has occurred.
2. The acceptance of the nullity shall not be restrained by the litigant party’s
relinquishment of his right therein before the delivery of the arbitrators’ decision.
Article 1. The arbitrators’ decisions shall not accept the appeal therein through any of the
217 appeal proceedings.
2. As for the decision delivered for the authentication of the arbitrators’ decision or
by its nullity, it shall be possible to appeal against it by the appropriate appeal
proceedings.
3. With the exception of the preceding clause terms, the decision shall not be subject
to the appeal if the arbitrators were authorized for reconciliation or the litigant
parties have expressly relinquished the right to appeal, or the litigation value were
not exceeding ten thousand Dirham.
Article The arbitrators shall be allowed to valuate their fees and the arbitration expenditures,
218 and they may inflict all or part of them on the losing party, and the court, on the basis
of the request of one of the litigant parties, may amend that valuation with what shall
be adequate to the effort done and the litigation nature.
The publishers would like to thank LexisNexis and SADER Legal Publishing
for their permission to use translated extracts from the UAE Civil Procedure Code.
More information about Lexis Middle East Laws can be found

at www.lexismiddleeastlaw.ae.

ICC DISPUTE RESOLUTION www.iccarbitration.org
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is a highly reputable provider of
dispute resolution services for international businesses that are seeking alternatives to
court litigation.
ICC dispute resolution exists in many forms, ranging from arbitration and mediation to
expertise and dispute boards. This service is administered by two main bodies: the ICC
International Court of Arbitration and the ICC International Centre for ADR.
ICC BOOKSTORE www.iccbooks.com
ICC Publications is the publishing arm of ICC. It provides resources for international
business; invaluable for bankers, lawyers, arbitrators and anyone involved in cross
border trade. The content of ICC’s publications is derived from the work of ICC
commissions, institutions and international experts. In addition to the traditional paper
format, the ICC Bookstore also offers practical eBooks for which the delivery time
takes only minutes.
The list of products covers three broad categories — ICC rules and standards, practical
guidelines, and reference works. The rules and accompanying guidelines, which form
the core of the publishing programme, are updated periodically to take account of
technical developments and the evolution of commercial and banking practices.
ICC HEARING CENTRE www.icchearingcentre.org

In response to growing demand from the business and legal communities, ICC opened
a dedicated facility for arbitration hearings and other forms of commercial dispute
resolution in October 2008.2
Located next to Trocadero in Paris, it is the first facility of
its kind. With over 800m , it is composed of 10 meeting rooms of various sizes custom
built to the highest specifications.
The ICC Hearing Centre is available for any kind of institutional or ad hoc arbitration
hearings as well as for the conduct of amicable dispute resolution (ADR) procedures
and business meetings. The ICC Hearing Centre welcomes hearings from the World
Bank, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and other institutional and ad hoc
arbitration hearings as well as ICC Arbitration hearings. For business meetings,
seminars and trainings, the Hearing Centre is the ideal venue in Paris.
International Chamber of Commerce

38 cours Albert 1er
75008 Paris, France
Tel +33 (0)1 49 53 28 28
Fax +33 (0)1 49 53 28 59
Website www.iccwbo.org

Summaries of
UAE COURTS’
DECISIONS
on Arbitration
This book is the first ever to summarize in English a series of judgments

issued over the last 20 years by the Dubai Court of Cassation, the Federal
Supreme Court of Cassation, the Fujairah Federal Court of First Instance
and the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation. It has been prepared with a view
to providing a useful tool for lawyers, arbitrators and other professionals
involved in arbitration proceedings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The judgments included have been carefully selected and summarized,
in order to offer insight into how arbitration works and how it is treated
by the judiciary in the UAE. Each summary contains a convenient headnote,
which enables the reader to identify, at a glance, the principles of arbitration
set out by the UAE courts in the selected judgments.
This collection of summaries addresses the need within the arbitration
community for easy access to UAE jurisprudence with a focus on arbitration.
It will serve as a readily comprehensible guide to arbitration in the UAE.
ICC Publication No. 746E

ISBN: 978-92-842-0199-3
ICC Business Bookstore
www.iccbooks.com

746e Summaries Uae - Ebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

746e Summaries Uae - Ebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summaries of

All rights reserved.

Permission can be requested from ICC through pub@iccwbo.org.

ICC Publication No. 746E

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 3

4 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 5

INDEX. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

UAE Federal Law Provisions on Arbitration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

6 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

It is my great pleasure to introduce this digest of decisions about arbitration matters

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 7

I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my fellow commission members Hassan Arab,

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 9

Hassan Arab, Al Tamimi & Co

10 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 11

Arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism. No two arbitrations are the

12 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 13

14 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Scope of the arbitration agreement

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 15

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators – Jurisdiction

The charter-party executed between the parties contained an arbitration agreement

The Petitioner filed a petition to cassation.

16 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

Following an examination of the charter-party, the Court of Cassation found that, in

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed.

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 17

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrators

not extend to judgments that dismiss a request to appoint an arbitrator.

18 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

Accordingly, the present petition to cassation was dismissed.

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 19

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Applicable procedure in arbitration – Competence of arbitrators –

 the arbitrator administered an irregular oath to the Respondent’s representative at

Petitions to recuse an arbitrator who has become incompetent must be made in

20 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

Judgment The petition to cassation was based on two grounds.

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 21

Accordingly, the challenged judgment was overturned.

22 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 23

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Time limit for arbitration proceedings

the Civil Procedure Code.

Accordingly, the present petition to cassation is dismissed.

24 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Waiver of right to appeal

SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION | 25

26 | SUMMARIES OF UAE COURTS' DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION

DUBAI COURT OF CASSATION

Headnote Arbitration – Assignment of arbitration agreement – Capacity to agree to arbitration

The parties to an arbitration agreement may, explicitly or implicitly, agree to extend

If a contracting party assigns rights and obligations to a third party by assignment

In disputes settled by arbitration, it is not necessary for the litigant to appear

the arbitrator administered an irregular oath to the Respondent’s representative at