THE AUTHORS:
Tom Parkin, Senior Associate at Clyde & Co
Nadine Danzey, Trainee Solicitor at Clyde & Co
Clyde & Co’s Young Arbitration Group provides a unique insight into international arbitration issues through the lens of young international arbitration practitioners working across different jurisdictions. In this series with Daily Jus, Clyde & Co examines notable arbitral developments from around the world, offering a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis of key cases, legislative reforms, and emerging trends that shaped international arbitration over the past year.
2025 has been a significant year for arbitration in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), as it continues to consolidate its status as a leading international arbitration hub. First, the Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed the power of arbitral tribunals to issue and manage interim measures without premature judicial interference, aligning onshore practice with international arbitration standards. Second, the Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority resolved conflicting judicial interpretations concerning the signature of arbitral awards, reinforcing consistency across the UAE’s judicial system and further strengthening confidence in the UAE arbitral framework. This article takes a closer look at these developments.
Anti-Suit Injunctions
The Dubai Court of Cassation, the highest appellate court in Dubai, has confirmed that arbitral tribunals have autonomous authority to issue anti-suit injunctions without the interference of the civil courts during the course of arbitration proceedings.
The Court of Cassation clarified the issue in Commercial Appeal No. 657 of 2025. The case concerned an ICC arbitration in which the arbitral tribunal had issued an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent from filing parallel court proceedings concerning matters governed by a memorandum of understanding unless authorised in writing by the tribunal. The injunction was subsequently challenged before the Dubai Court of Appeal. The Court annulled the tribunal’s injunction order.
On appeal, the Court of Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal’s ruling. It held that Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law (UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018) expressly grants arbitral tribunals the authority to issue, amend, or revoke interim measures as they deem necessary. Article 21 does not specifically refer to anti-suit injunctions, but the Court considered that they fall within Article 21(e) of the Federal Arbitration Law, being any interim or preventive measure ordering a party to “take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself”. The Court held that this authority is exclusive to the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration and that only the tribunal may, on the respondent’s application, annul, amend, suspend, or terminate an interim measure. However, the respondent in the present case did not submit any such application to the tribunal.
The respondent also argued that an anti-suit injunction would deprive it of its inherent right to litigation. The Court of Cassation disagreed on the basis that the anti-suit injunction only restricted disputes relating to the validity or implementation of the memorandum of understanding, which was the subject of the arbitration, or certain related matters, and did not interfere with the respondent’s right to litigate generally.
Unified Standard for Award Signatures
The Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority (established in 2019 with authority to resolve conflicting principles set by UAE courts across different emirates) issued Decision No. 1 of 2025 to address long-standing inconsistencies in the interpretation of Article 41 of the Federal Arbitration Law. Article 41 requires arbitration awards to be signed by a majority of the arbitrators. While the signature requirement itself is obviously uncontroversial, it is common practice in the region for arbitration awards to be executed by a signature on each and every page, not simply in a signature block at the end of the document. The Federal Arbitration Law mandates signatures but does not specify whether arbitrators must sign every page of the award or whether a signature on the final page alone is sufficient. This absence of explicit guidance led to divergent judicial approaches across the Emirates.
Historically, the Dubai Courts adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 41, holding that an arbitrator’s failure to sign every page of an arbitration award contravenes the legislative intent and constitutes a defect affecting public order, thereby justifying annulment. In contrast, the Abu Dhabi and Ras Al Khaimah Courts have tended to apply a more pragmatic approach, recognising that a signature on the final page of the award satisfied both the statutory requirement and the spirit of the New York Convention (1958). The resulting inconsistency created uncertainty for the parties (and, no small measure of inconvenience, for the unfortunate arbitrators) and opened the door to technical challenges aimed at frustrating enforcement.
Decision No. 1 of 2025 resolved this conflict by endorsing the pragmatic interpretation. The Authority confirmed that a signature on the final page of an arbitration award is sufficient to comply with Article 41 and that the absence of signatures on each page does not amount to a public policy violation. It concluded as follows:
“The Authority decided to abandon the principle established by the Dubai Court of Cassation (requiring signatures on all pages) and adopt the principle of the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation (signing the last page is sufficient).”
With this decision, the Authority aligned UAE practice with international arbitration standards, including those reflected in the New York Convention.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Tom Parkin is a Senior Associate in Clyde & Co’s Dispute Resolution Group, based in the Dubai office. He is an English-qualified solicitor who has practised in Dubai since 2020. His practice focuses on commercial litigation and international arbitration. He acts for high-profile corporate and individual clients and government bodies in complex, high-value, and often multi-jurisdictional disputes across a range of industries, with particular experience in the energy, media, construction, education, and manufacturing sectors.
Nadine Danzey is a trainee solicitor in Clyde & Co’s Dispute Resolution Group, based in Dubai.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
