Dubai Court of Cassation Affirms Arbitral Tribunals’ Authority to Issue Anti-Suit Injunctions - A New Era for Arbitration in the UAE
Dispute Resolution / UAE
Dr Hassan ArabPartner, Regional Head of Dispute Resolution
Mosaab AlySenior Counsel,Dispute Resolution
Hend Al MehairiAssociate,Private Client Services
Recent judgments in Dubai have brought significant clarity to the authority of arbitral tribunals to issue anti-suit injunctions. Anti-suit injunctions are a critical procedural tool in international arbitration, designed to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of arbitration agreements. Their primary function is to restrain parties from initiating or continuing parallel court proceedings in violation of an arbitration agreement, thereby preventing procedural abuse, duplicative litigation, and the risk of conflicting judgments. In the context of cross-border commercial disputes, where parties may be tempted to seek tactical advantages by litigating in multiple jurisdictions, anti-suit injunctions serve as a safeguard to ensure that the parties’ contractual commitment to arbitrate is respected and that the arbitral process is not undermined by external judicial interference. The use of anti-suit injunctions raises important questions about the balance between the constitutional right of access to courts and the need to enforce arbitration agreements. This article will analyse this question in the context of recent judgments (Dubai Court of Cassation’s landmark decision 657 of 2025 dated 3 July 2025) and discuss its implications for arbitration in the UAE.
The UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018, inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, grants arbitral tribunals broad authority to issue interim and conservatory measures. Article 21(1)(e) of the Arbitration Law explicitly empowers tribunals to “order action to be taken in order to prevent current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process or ordering to refrain from taking an action that may cause harm or prejudice the arbitral process.” This provision, while not expressly mentioning anti-suit injunctions, is widely interpreted as providing a legal basis for such orders, given their function in preventing parties from undermining the arbitration by resorting to court proceedings on matters subject to arbitration.
The law further stipulates that interim measures issued by arbitral tribunals are not self-executing; they require judicial confirmation before becoming enforceable. This judicial oversight acts as a safeguard to ensure that such orders do not infringe upon constitutional rights or exceed the tribunal’s authority.
The legal landscape regarding anti-suit injunctions in the UAE was recently clarified by the Dubai Court of Cassation in its landmark judgment No. 657-2025. This case arose from an ICC arbitration where the tribunal issued an anti-suit injunction restraining a party from initiating court proceedings on matters governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) until the final arbitral award, unless the tribunal granted prior written permission.
The restrained party challenged the order before the Dubai Court of Appeal, arguing that it violated constitutional rights and was not expressly authorized by UAE law. The Court of Appeal annulled the anti-suit injunction, holding that it infringed upon the right of access to the courts and that the Arbitration Law did not specifically empower tribunals to issue such orders.
On further appeal, the Dubai Court of Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Cassation Court held that:
The arbitral tribunal’s order was a temporary and targeted measure, not an absolute denial of the right to access the courts. It was a measure limited to disputes directly related to the MoU and the ongoing arbitration.
Article 21 of the Arbitration Law grants arbitral tribunals exclusive authority to issue, modify, suspend, or revoke interim measures, including anti-suit injunctions, as required by the nature of the dispute.
The only recourse for a party seeking to challenge such an interim measure is to apply to the issuing tribunal itself; the courts have no jurisdiction to annul or alter such measures once issued by the tribunal.
Judicial oversight is preserved at the enforcement stage, ensuring that constitutional rights are protected and that tribunals do not overreach their authority.
The Cassation Court’s judgment aligns the UAE with international best practices, particularly those in common law jurisdictions, and reinforces the independence of the arbitral process by limiting unnecessary judicial intervention.
In common law jurisdictions, both courts and arbitral tribunals are generally recognized as having the authority to issue anti-suit injunctions, viewing them as essential to upholding arbitration agreements and preventing conflicting judgments. In contrast, civil law countries have traditionally rejected such authority, emphasizing the sovereignty of national courts.
The UAE, with its mixed legal system, has now taken a clear step towards the common law approach, as confirmed by the recent Cassation judgment. The Arbitration Law’s broad language and the Cassation Court’s interpretation provide arbitral tribunals with the necessary tools to prevent procedural abuse and ensure the effectiveness of arbitration agreements.
Anti-suit injunctions are a critical tool for safeguarding the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and the judgment strikes a careful balance between the constitutional right of access to the courts and the need to uphold the parties’ contractual commitments to arbitrate.
The debate over the legitimacy of anti-suit injunctions in the UAE reflects a broader tension between two fundamental legal principles: the constitutional right of access to the courts and the need to ensure the effectiveness of arbitration agreements. On one hand, the right to litigate is enshrined in Article 41 of the UAE Constitution and is a cornerstone of the rule of law. On the other hand, the parties’ agreement to arbitrate represents a binding contractual commitment to resolve disputes outside the court system, and the effectiveness of arbitration depends on the ability to prevent parallel or duplicative proceedings.
The Dubai Court of Cassation’s recent judgment strikes a balance between these competing interests. The Court recognized that anti-suit injunctions do not constitute an absolute or general denial of the right to access the courts. Instead, they serve as a temporary and targeted mechanism to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement, prevent conflicting judgments, and preserve the integrity and efficiency of the arbitral process. The Court further clarified that the exclusive authority to issue, modify, or revoke such interim measures rests with the arbitral tribunal, not the courts, thereby limiting unnecessary judicial intervention and reinforcing the independence of arbitration.
At the same time, the UAE Arbitration Law provides for judicial oversight at the enforcement stage. An anti-suit injunction issued by a tribunal remains unenforceable until the competent court issues an enforcement order, after notifying the opposing party and allowing them to present their defence. This safeguard ensures that constitutional rights are protected and that tribunals do not abuse their authority. Thus, the UAE legal framework accommodates both the need to respect parties’ rights to litigate and the imperative to uphold the effectiveness of arbitration agreements.
The Dubai Court of Cassation’s judgment is important in the evolution of arbitration law in the UAE. As mentioned above, it affirms the principle that arbitral tribunals possess broad and exclusive powers to issue interim measures, including anti-suit injunctions, during the course of arbitration. This autonomy is essential for several reasons. As mentioned above, anti-suit injunctions are a critical tool for safeguarding the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and the judgment strikes a careful balance between the constitutional right of access to the courts and the need to uphold the parties’ contractual commitments to arbitrate. The Court recognized that anti-suit injunctions do not amount to an absolute bar on litigation but serve as a temporary mechanism to enforce the arbitration agreement and prevent procedural abuse. Importantly, the UAE Arbitration Law provides for judicial oversight at the enforcement stage, ensuring that such orders are not abused and that constitutional rights are protected.
The decision aligns the UAE’s arbitration framework with international best practices, particularly those in common law jurisdictions where anti-suit injunctions are recognized as legitimate and effective means of supporting arbitration. This enhances the UAE’s attractiveness as a seat for international arbitration and bolsters investor confidence in the country’s legal system.
This judgment provides much-needed clarity and certainty regarding the powers of arbitral tribunals, limits unnecessary judicial intervention, and reinforces the independence of the arbitration process. The Dubai Court of Cassation’s judgment, grounded in Article 21 of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law, sets a clear precedent that will guide future arbitration proceedings and judicial decisions in the UAE.
For further information,please contact Dr Hassan Arab.
Published in October 2025
