Recent Qatari Court of Cassation judgment – The jurisdiction of the Qatari courts and the primacy of arbitration agreements
Dispute Resolution / Qatar
Roy GeorgiadesPartner,Dispute Resolution
Maysa SleimanAssociate,Dispute Resolution
Zane AnaniSenior Knowledge Lawyer,Dispute Resolution
The principle of party autonomy—allowing parties to freely determine the terms and procedures of their dispute resolution—is key to modern arbitration. In recent years, Qatari courts have increasingly demonstrated a commitment to upholding arbitration agreements, reinforcing Qatar’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The recent judgment of the Qatari Court of Cassation in Case No. 690 of 2025 is an important decision that not only reaffirms the primacy of party autonomy in contractual relations but also clarifies the circumstances under which Qatari courts will decline jurisdiction in favour of arbitration, thereby strengthening the legal framework for arbitration in Qatar. This decision follows the earlier decision of the Qatari Investment and Trade Court in the same matter which addressed the jurisdiction of Qatari courts in the presence of an arbitration clause. Together, these judgments provide a comprehensive authority on the primacy of arbitration agreements, the limited circumstances in which Qatari courts may assume jurisdiction, and the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration clauses in commercial disputes.
This article will discuss the main findings of the case and the important legal principles regarding the jurisdiction of Qatari courts and the primacy of arbitration agreements.
The dispute arose between a Qatari company (the Claimant), a foreign company (First Respondent) and its Qatari branch (the Second Respondent). The conflict concerned unpaid commissions allegedly owed to the Claimant for its role in facilitating a major contract in Qatar’s oil and gas sector. The Claimant argued that it had entered into an independent representation agreement with the Respondents, under which it was to provide various services, including securing contracts and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders. In return, the Claimant was to receive a commission based on the value of contracts obtained.
The Claimant claimed that it had successfully introduced the Respondents to the contracting party, organized meetings, and helped secure a lucrative contract. Despite fulfilling its obligations, the Claimant alleged that the Respondents failed to pay the agreed commission, prompting legal action in the Qatari courts.
The contract between the parties stipulated that disputes would be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The Claimant first filed an arbitration case in Singapore before the Arbitration Centre. Due to the temporary suspension decision issued by the Malysian court for all legal proceedings against the First Respondent, the Claimant decided to withdraw the arbitration case, and sought to bring the matter before the Qatari courts, alleging the “impossibility to execute the arbitration agreement.” To justify the claims of impossibility, the Claimant argued that: a) the temporary suspension of the arbitration (and all other legal proceedings) against the First Respondent in Malaysia by virtue of a court decision of the Malaysian court makes it impossible to proceed further with the arbitration claims and b) that the Respondent’s failure to pay its own portion of the arbitration fees and the non-objection to the case withdrawal were deemed an implicit acceptance to give up the arbitration agreement.
The case reached the Court of Cassation after the lower courts found the lawsuit inadmissible due to the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Claimant argued that the arbitration clause should be considered forfeited due to the impossibility. The Claimant argued that the arbitration clause should be considered inoperative because the Malaysian High Court had suspended the arbitration for three months (extended several times) and the Respondent had not paid its share of the arbitration fees. The Court rejected this argument, holding that, neither a temporary suspension nor non-payment of fees would render the arbitration agreement void, invalid, without effect, or incapable of being performed. There was no evidence that the arbitration agreement was fundamentally unenforceable. The Claimant argued that the suspension constituted an impediment to the implementation of arbitration and, consequently, invoked the jurisdiction of the Qatari courts. In response, the First Respondent maintained that the temporary suspension stemmed from a decision of the Supreme Court in Malaysia, pursuant to which it underwent a “restructuring” process. As a result, all pending judicial and arbitral proceedings were suspended until the completion of that process. Although the suspension was extended on multiple occasions, it remained temporary in nature. The First Respondent also argued that the Claimant’s withdrawal from the ongoing arbitration proceedings was a unilateral decision, which the First Respondent accepted without prejudice to its right to arbitration, and had reserved all its rights by virtue of the contract and law.
The Qatari Court of Cassation’s judgment in Appeal No. 690 of 2025 is an important decision that reinforces the primacy of party autonomy and the enforceability of arbitration agreements under Qatari law.
The Court of Cassation’s judgment is an affirmation of the principle of party autonomy and the enforceability of arbitration agreements under Qatari law. The court’s reasoning and conclusions are instructive for several reasons:
Primacy of Arbitration Agreements and Party Autonomy The court stated that “the agreement on arbitration entails the litigants to refrain from resorting to the judiciary of the state,” underscoring that parties who have agreed to arbitrate their disputes are generally precluded from seeking judicial intervention. The court further clarified that if a party nevertheless files a lawsuit before the judiciary, the other party may invoke the arbitration clause “in the form of a plea of non-acceptance,” thereby challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Waiver and Timing of the Arbitration Defence The court sets out the circumstances under which the right to rely on an arbitration clause may be waived. The court held that this right “may be waived expressly or implicitly, and the right to it is forfeited if it is raised late after speaking on the subject.” However, in this case, the First Respondent had “maintained this plea before the expert, as well as in the first session before the Court of First Instance, and before making any request or defence in the subject matter of the lawsuit, and did not waive this defence.” This timely invocation preserved the right to rely on the arbitration agreement.
Non-Implementation and Suspension of Arbitration The Claimant argued that the arbitration clause had lapsed due to the suspension of arbitration proceedings by the Supreme Court of Malaysia and the non-payment of fees by the First Respondent. The Court of Cassation rejected this argument, stating that “the aforesaid is not sufficient to determine the lapse of the arbitration clause, as it was not proven that the agreement was invalid, null and void, without effect, or could not be enforced.” The court emphasized that only clear evidence of invalidity, nullity, ineffectiveness, or unenforceability could justify disregarding the arbitration agreement.
The Qatari Court of Cassation’s judgment in Appeal No. 690 of 2025 is an important decision that reinforces the primacy of party autonomy and the enforceability of arbitration agreements under Qatari law. By upholding the binding nature of arbitration clauses and setting a high threshold for their invalidation, the court has sent a clear message to commercial parties: agreements to arbitrate will be respected and enforced by the Qatari judiciary, and attempts to circumvent such agreements will not be entertained unless there is compelling evidence of invalidity or unenforceability. This decision enhances legal certainty for parties engaging in international and domestic commercial transactions in Qatar and aligns Qatari law with international best practices in arbitration.
For further information,please contact Roy Georgiades.
Published in October 2025
