Dubai Court of Cassation judgments – Recent Judgments Reshaping Arbitration Practice in the UAE
Dispute Resolution / UAE
Mohamed Gaber AbdelsabourSenior Counsel,Dispute Resolution
Zane Anani Senior Knowledge Lawyer (Consultant),Dispute Resolution
In 2024 and first quarter of 2025, the UAE Courts rendered several key arbitration judgments. A review of recent judgments from the UAE’s highest courts reveals an increasingly sophisticated approach to arbitration, with important clarifications on the validity of arbitration agreements, the scope of judicial intervention, and the enforcement of arbitral awards. The following analysis explores the key themes and implications arising from these judgments, offering valuable insights for practitioners, businesses, and stakeholders engaged in arbitration within the UAE.
This case provided important clarification on the interpretation and enforceability of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts, particularly where such clauses are drafted in a manner that appears to offer parties a choice between arbitration and litigation. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the lower court, which allowed the commercial dispute to proceed in court rather than arbitration. The court examined the arbitration clause within the partnership agreement, which stated that disputes arising from the agreement would be subject to binding arbitration according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. However, the clause also provided that parties could pursue their rights in specific jurisdictions, including Malta, the United States (Pennsylvania), and the UAE (Dubai). The court determined that the arbitration clause did not mandate arbitration as the sole method of dispute resolution. Instead, it offered arbitration as one of the options, alongside the possibility of litigation in the specified jurisdictions. This interpretation was based on the language of the clause, which allowed for either arbitration or court proceedings.
The judgment reinforces the principle that arbitration clauses must be explicit and exclusive to bar court proceedings. If a contract offers a choice between arbitration and litigation, parties retain the right to bring their claims before the courts, and the existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the judiciary. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation’s decision thus provides greater certainty for parties drafting dispute resolution clauses, highlighting the need for clarity if arbitration is intended to be the sole forum.
The court in this case clarified that the DIFC-LCIA no longer existed as a valid arbitration institution, and therefore, any arbitration agreements referring to it would need to be interpreted considering this change. In the absence of a clear alternative specified by the parties, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) became the default arbitration institution. The court found that the arbitration conducted under DIAC rules was valid, despite the appellant's contention that it should have been under DIFC-LCIA rules. The legislative changes reinforced DIAC's jurisdiction, making the arbitration proceedings compliant with the new legal framework. The court determined that the procedural requirements were met, including the proper documentation of the arbitration award's issuance date, and there was no basis for annulling the arbitration award. The court affirmed the validity of the arbitration award issued by DIAC, as the arbitration was conducted under the appropriate jurisdiction and procedural rules.
The abolition of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre necessitated the reinterpretation of existing arbitration agreements that designated it as the arbitration centre. The court's decision in this case highlighted the impact of this legislative change, validating the arbitration conducted under DIAC rules and reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries established by Decree Law No. 34 of 2021.
These decisions collectively enhance the predictability, efficiency, and fairness of arbitration proceedings in the UAE, solidifying the country's position as a global arbitration hub.
In Dubai Court of Cassation judgment dated 7 March 2024, the court held that if a court dismisses an application to recognize an arbitral award due to the lack of required formalities, that order shall have a temporary res-judicata effect, which will cease once such defects in the award are remedied. This judgment affirms the principle that procedural defects in arbitral awards, if rectified, do not permanently bar enforcement in the UAE. Pursuant to Article 54 of the Arbitration Law, the arbitral tribunal could rectify those defects in form (but not in substance). Subsequently, the parties could recommence enforcement proceedings despite the previous court order. This judgment exemplifies the UAE's pro-arbitration approach, ensuring that arbitration awards are enforceable and that the UAE courts play a vital positive role in establishing arbitration practice. It also considers rectification of formal defects, highlighting that formal defects that taint arbitral awards may be rectified without impacting the enforceability of such awards.
In this case, the Dubai Court of Cassation defined the seat of arbitration and emphasized that there is no correlation between the seat of arbitration and the geographical place where arbitration hearings took place. The Court held that determining the seat has significant implications for arbitral proceedings, including the procedural law governing the arbitration, the national court with supervising jurisdiction, and the nationality of the arbitral award. The place of arbitration (i.e., where arbitration hearings took place) does not have any legal impact on the arbitral proceedings. This judgment clarifies the distinction between the seat and place of arbitration, emphasizing the legal significance of the seat in determining the applicable procedural law and jurisdiction.
The Dubai Court of Cassation also held that the arbitration centre’s rules that apply to the proceedings shall override the UAE Arbitration Law as long as such rules do not contravene public policy. The Court emphasized that arbitral tribunals could award legal costs under the applicable arbitration rules, provided those rules grant them such power. The ICC Arbitration Rules grant tribunals the power to award legal costs, including legal representatives' fees.
The court highlighted the authority of arbitral tribunals to award legal costs under the applicable arbitration rules, reinforcing the UAE's commitment to supporting arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution venue.
The Dubai Court of Cassation in this case found that an arbitration agreement provided in an annex to the main contract, which was not signed, was void. The Court held that arbitration is an exceptional route of adjudication requiring the express consent of the parties' legal representatives. The court emphasized that, under UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018), an arbitration agreement must be established in writing and must clearly reflect the mutual intent of the parties to submit disputes to arbitration. The court clarified that while annexes and schedules to a contract do not always require separate signatures if they merely elaborate on essential terms, any clause that constitutes a waiver of the right to litigate before ordinary courts—such as an arbitration clause—must be expressly and personally agreed upon by authorized representatives of the parties. The mere presence of a company seal, without a corresponding signature from the authorized signatory, is insufficient to establish a binding arbitration agreement.
The Dubai Court of Cassation in judgment dated 25 September 2025 upheld an arbitration award despite significant challenges over jurisdiction. The Court rejected the appellant's allegations concerning the issuance of another conflicting award in Syria by another arbitral tribunal in the same dispute. The Court reaffirmed that challenges to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal must be raised within the statutory period, and once a tribunal’s jurisdiction is established and unchallenged within that period, it becomes res judicata, precluding further dispute on the matter. The court also clarified that the grounds for nullity of an arbitration award are enumerated in Article 53 of the UAE Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018), and that such actions are not an avenue for substantive review of the merits of the arbitral decision. This ruling reinforces the finality of jurisdictional decisions in arbitration proceedings, reducing disruptive procedural challenges and enhancing the prominence of arbitral tribunals to handle disputes efficiently.
These recent judgments by the UAE Courts highlight significant changes to the UAE arbitration landscape. These rulings emphasize the need for clear and mutual arbitration agreements, support the enforceability of arbitral awards despite procedural defects, and clarify the distinction between the seat and place of arbitration. Additionally, the courts have reinforced the authority of arbitral tribunals to award legal costs and highlighted the importance of formalities in arbitration agreements. These decisions collectively enhance the predictability, efficiency, and fairness of arbitration proceedings in the UAE, solidifying the country's position as a global arbitration hub. As businesses navigate these new legal landscapes, they must ensure their arbitration agreements are meticulously drafted to avoid potential challenges and secure favourable outcomes.
For further information,please contact Mohamed Gaber Abdelsabour.
Published in May 2025
