50 Defining Moments of 2025: Part 5
THE AUTHOR:
Joseph Chedrawe KC, Independent International Arbitrator
This article is part of “Middle East Arbitration: 50 Moments That Shaped 2025,” a series exploring 50 significant developments in international arbitration across the Middle East. Spanning the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and beyond, the series highlights key judicial decisions, legislative reforms, and institutional developments that shaped the region’s evolving arbitration landscape in 2025.
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Confirms Courts Cannot Review Legal Interpretation or Reweigh Evidence in Awards
On 25 November 2024, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation issued a ruling in Case No. 1115 of 2024 that courts cannot review the tribunal’s legal interpretation or reweigh evidence in an arbitral award.
The applicant party (the award debtor) filed a case for the annulment of an arbitral award, arguing that the arbitral tribunal had treated its claims less favourably than the counterclaims brought by the other side.
Specifically, the award debtor complained that the arbitral tribunal had imposed stricter proof requirements on it, allocated more pages to analyzing its claims (despite their lower value), and failed to give it a fair chance to respond to the counterclaims. The award debtor described these alleged imbalances as procedural errors that violated public policy and the right to a fair hearing.
On 16 October 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the annulment action. The award debtor then appealed to the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, repeating the same arguments.
The Court stated that an annulment action is not an appeal on the merits. The Court also stated that annulment proceedings do not allow the court to review the arbitrator’s application or interpretation of the law and stated that the reasoning in arbitral awards does not have to meet the same standards as court judgments.
The Court further stated that evaluating evidence is for the arbitral tribunal, and that parties cannot challenge an award just because they disagree with how the arbitral tribunal weighed the evidence.
The Court noted that Article 53 of the UAE Arbitration Law lists the grounds for setting aside an award. The Court then noted that disputes about the arbitral tribunal’s evaluation of evidence do not fall within those grounds. With reference to Article 26 of the UAE Arbitration Law, which requires equal treatment and a full opportunity for each party to present its case, the Court found these standards were met. The Court found that the arbitral tribunal had given both parties equal opportunities to present their evidence and documents.
The Court noted that the award itself contained a summary of the facts, witness testimonies, and expert reports, demonstrating that the arbitral tribunal had examined the evidence. The Court found no proof that either party had been denied the right to present a defense or that the arbitral tribunal had violated the principles of fair litigation.
The Court therefore upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal Dismisses Challenge Based On Alleged Lack of Signing Authority
On 29 January 2025, the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of Appeal in Case No. 3/2025 dismissed a challenge to a partial award on jurisdiction issued by a tribunal under the auspices of the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (“arbitrateAD”). The Court affirmed that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute and rejected the appellant’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to an alleged lack of signing authority.
The arbitral tribunal had issued a partial award on jurisdiction on 27 December 2024 confirming its jurisdiction. The appellant filed a court challenge, arguing that the arbitration clause was void because the contract had not been signed by a duly authorised legal representative.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that the company’s conduct amounted to implied ratification of the arbitration clause. The Court noted that a party who benefits from a contract cannot later claim the arbitration clause is invalid. The Court also emphasized that contracts must be performed in good faith under Article 246 of the Civil Transactions Law. The Court also relied on prior decisions of the Abu Dhabi (Cassation Case No. 784/2024) and Dubai Courts of Cassation (Cassation Case No. 724/2021) that the execution of a contract bearing a company’s stamp constitutes ratification, barring later challenges based on lack of authority.
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Extends Arbitration Clause to Successive Contracts
On 16 October 2025, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in Case No. 980/2025 held that an arbitration clause in a main construction contract extended to subsequent trilateral agreements with subcontractors where those agreements contained a clear referral to the main contract’s terms.
The case arose from a construction project governed by a construction contract between the project owner and the general contractor, which contained an arbitration clause providing for disputes to be resolved under the rules of the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Conciliation and Commercial Arbitration Centre, with arbitration being final and binding on both parties.
Subsequently, several trilateral agreements in appendices were entered into between the project owner, the main contractor, and different subcontractors. These appendices stated that “all conditions and terms contained in the main construction contract and Appendix No. 1 remain as they are without any change, including but not limited to inspection of works, variations and claims, re-measurement, liquidated damages”.
The appellant (main contractor) argued that the appendices did not reference the arbitration clause, that the new parties did not accept this clause, and therefore that arbitration did not apply to them such that jurisdiction over the dispute was with the Abu Dhabi courts.
The Court held that this challenge was not valid. The Court stated that disputes relating to multi-party construction contracts involving the main contractor, subcontractor and project owner have connections that must be taken into consideration when resolving disputes that may arise between them, and that if one of the contracts related to the same project contains an arbitration clause, it shall be effective and binding on all parties so long as there exists an agreement between them to refer to the arbitration clause contained in that contract, so that decisions do not conflict.
The Court found that the trilateral agreements constituted a clear referral to the main construction contract containing the arbitration clause. The Court concluded that the proper administration of justice required not fragmenting these contractual requirements and the intertwined legal relationships they created, and therefore they should all be subject to arbitration.
4. ADGM Courts and Dubai Courts Sign MoU on Judgment Enforcement
On 14 January 2025, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) Courts and Dubai’s onshore courts entered into an MoU establishing the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, including ratified arbitral awards (clause 4(a)(ii); “judgment” includes “arbitral awards ratified or recognised by Dubai Courts or ADGM Courts respectively. A ratified or recognised arbitral award by Dubai Courts or ADGM Courts has the same force as a judgment of either of the Courts and therefore does not require any further ratification or recognition by the other court”).
The MoU sets out two main ways to enforce, either by a direct application with the other court, which will check whether the judgment is final and authentic, or through “deputization,” where a judge from the original court asks a judge from the other court to handle the execution (clauses 7-8, 12-13). In either scenario, the enforcing court does not re-examine the merits of the original decision (clauses 9, 14).
ADGM Court of Appeal Confirms Institutional Rules are Subject to the Mandatory Law of the Seat
On 30 September 2025, the ADGM Court of Appeal in A30 & Others v E30 & Others ADGMCA 0003 overturned a Court of First Instance decision and granted a worldwide freezing order of up to USD 250 million in support of an ongoing LCIA arbitration (See decision at p.1 and para 24).
The Court held that the mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, including Section 31, have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and therefore permit parties to apply directly to the court for interim relief without first obtaining the tribunal’s authorization under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules 2020 (paras 17-18, 20-23).
The case involved a project finance arrangement where several banks had extended financing on the condition that all proceeds would flow through a designated collection account (paras 3-5). After the respondents failed to reimburse sums seized from the appellants’ accounts by order of the Abu Dhabi onshore courts, the appellants commenced LCIA arbitration in September 2022. (paras 6-7). The appellants later discovered that the respondents were planning to divert payments to foreign accounts rather than the designated collection account, prompting an urgent application for freezing relief before the ADGM Courts (paras 8-10).
The Court of First Instance did not grant the application, finding that the appellants had acted in breach of contract by not obtaining the tribunal’s authorization as required by Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules 2020, which states that, after a tribunal is formed, a party may only apply to a court for interim measures “in exceptional cases and with the Tribunal’s authorisation” (paras 13-15).
The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that Section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, which allows parties to apply to the court for interim measures “before or during the arbitral proceedings,” is a mandatory provision under Section 9 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations and “[has] effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary” (paras 17-18). The Court noted that the tribunal was “unable to act effectively” because it could not grant interim measures on a without-notice basis pursuant to Section 31(6) (paras 18-19).
The Court emphasized that Article 14(2) of the LCIA Rules itself recognizes that the tribunal’s discretion is “subject to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law” (paras 21-22). The Court then concluded that “a party who seeks to take advantage of a mandatory provision imposed by the seat without having done what Article 25(3) requires cannot be said to be acting in breach of contract” (para 23).
SCCA Launches Digital Signature Service
On 27 July 2025, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”) launched a digital signature service that removes the need for wet-ink signatures, enabling arbitrators, mediators, and parties to execute arbitral awards, procedural orders, and other case documents electronically (“[t]he digital signature service will encompass arbitral awards, procedural orders, minutes, arbitrator and mediator appointment documents, any party agreements, and other legal documents”).
This new service became the default method for SCCA proceedings, unless the parties have an explicit agreement to the contrary.
The system is secured using Public Key Infrastructure from providers licensed by Saudi Arabia’s Digital Government Authority, which verifies and ensures the identity of the signatory and the integrity of the document (“[e]-signed documents will be accompanied by a certificate documenting the identity of the signer, the authority that issued the certificate, the time of signing, and assurance of the document’s integrity, verifying that it has not been modified after signing”).
This update operationalizes a practice already recognized in the SCCA’s 2023 rules (Article 36(1)), within the legal framework established by the Electronic Transactions Law (Royal Decree No. M/18 of 2007, Articles 5 and 14, granting electronic signatures the same legal validity as handwritten signatures) and the Law of Evidence (Royal Decree No. M/43 of 2021, Article 57, granting electronically signed documents full evidentiary weight).
Saudi Arabia Proposes New Draft Arbitration Law
On 24 September 2025, Saudi Arabia’s National Competitiveness Center released a draft of a new arbitration law for public consultation. The draft law is the first proposed amendment since Saudi Arabia’s Arbitration Law came into effect in 2012 (issued by Royal Decree No. M/34 dated 24/5/1433 H, 16 April 2012).
The draft law introduces several reforms, clarifying that jurisdiction for arbitration-related matters will be consolidated under the Commercial Court of Appeal (Article 10) and formally introducing the “kompetenz-kompetenz” principle, which empowers arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction (Article 26(A)).
The draft law also removes the requirement for a sole arbitrator or chair to hold a degree in Sharia or law (Article 14) and introduces provisions for arbitrator immunity, except in cases of fraud or serious professional error (Article 25).
The draft law also contemplates emergency arbitrators (Article 1), the enforceability of interim and partial awards (Article 49(1)), and the validity of electronically signed awards (Article 52(4); “The award is considered rendered at the place of arbitration, even if it was signed elsewhere or electronically, unless otherwise the parties agree.”). The draft law also confirms that arbitration agreements are governed by the parties’ chosen law, with the seat’s law applying if no law is chosen (Article 11(A)). Finally, the draft law removes the existing prohibition on government bodies agreeing to arbitration without prime ministerial approval.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Chedrawe KC is an international arbitrator based in the Middle East, with two decades of dispute resolution experience. He has acted as counsel in more than 50 international arbitrations and as arbitrator in over 50 proceedings across a wide range of seats, rules, and governing laws.
Joseph sits as chair, sole arbitrator, and co-arbitrator in institutional and ad hoc proceedings, including under the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIAC, QICCA, arbitrateAD, SCCA, and HKIAC Rules. He is also a member of several leading institutional panels of arbitrators.
Previously, Joseph was a Partner and Vice Chair of Disputes (EMEA) at Covington & Burling and Office Managing Partner and Head of Disputes in Dubai at Vinson & Elkins. He is a visiting professor at Dalhousie University and formerly lectured at the University of Oxford. A Canadian-qualified lawyer fluent in English, French, and Arabic, Joseph was appointed King’s Counsel in 2024.
*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.
