50 Defining Moments of 2025: Part 3
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.
Dubai Court of Cassation Says Foreign Execution File Does Not Bar Enforcement in UAE
On 26 June 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation, in Case No. 276/2025 (Civil), held that a judgment creditor may seek enforcement of a foreign judgment in the UAE even if an execution file has been opened in another state, provided no actual recovery has occurred.
The appellant sought to enforce a judgment from the Riyadh Court of Appeal in Dubai. The execution judge granted the order, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that it is not permissible to open an execution file for the same judgment in more than one jurisdiction, as an execution file had previously been opened at the Riyadh Execution Court.
The Dubai Court of Cassation overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court first determined that the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”) Convention for the Execution of Judgments was the applicable convention for the case, as it is more specific in its nature and scope than the Riyadh Arab Convention for Judicial Cooperation.
The Court also noted that Articles 2 and 3 of the GCC Convention did not stipulate, as a condition for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, that there could not be an execution file or enforcement procedures, whether in the state that issued the foreign judgment or elsewhere.
The Court held that what matters is whether the creditor has obtained its rights under the judgment sought to be enforced, which is not achieved merely by opening an execution file in another state or by taking enforcement procedures therein.
The Court concluded that the appealed judgment had therefore imposed a condition for ordering enforcement of the foreign judgment, which the Convention did not require. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant had submitted a certificate from the Riyadh Execution Court confirming that execution there was suspended at the request of the appellant’s representative so that he could pursue enforcement in the UAE.
Dubai Court of Appeal Rejects Challenge Grounded in Governing Law, Public Policy, and Tribunal Authority
On 7 August 2025, the Dubai Court of Appeal, in Case No. 14/2025, dismissed an application to annul a partial award. (“seeking a judgment to annul the partial award issued in ICC arbitration case MDY|26638”).
The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement between the claimant, a Saudi energy company, and the respondent, an international entity, which had a limited liability company in Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the respondent was acquired by Siemens AG Munich. The claimant alleged that the respondent and related Siemens entities had subsequently engaged in unfair competition in bad faith.
The partial award addressed preliminary matters concerning the scope of the dispute, and the tribunal had not yet rendered a final decision on the unfair competition allegations.
The claimant sought annulment of the partial award on three grounds, alleging that: first, the tribunal had failed to apply Saudi law to the unfair competition issues, applying English law instead; second, the award violated Saudi public policy; and third, the tribunal lacked authority to issue a partial award.
On the first ground, the Court found that the joint venture agreement provided for English law as the governing law (“Article 17 of the joint venture agreement which provides that the agreement and the relationship of the parties shall be governed by English law and interpreted in accordance with its provisions”). The Court also noted that the claimant itself had stated, in its request for arbitration and closing submissions, that English law governed the dispute, and had itself relied on English case law. The Court thus concluded that the parties had agreed to apply English substantive law.
On the public policy ground, the Court held that the claimant had failed to prove the alleged violation and that the award did not definitively decide the unfair competition issue.
On the tribunal’s authority to issue a partial award, the Court held that the ICC Rules grant the tribunal the right to issue decisions on objections regarding its jurisdiction and the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court found the partial award had addressed the scope of the dispute, which was authorized under the applicable rules.
The Court therefore dismissed the annulment application: “since the grounds of the claim failed to establish any of the grounds for annulment provided for under Article 53 of Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, the Court rules to dismiss the claim”.
Dubai Court of Cassation Rules Adding Non-Signatory Cannot Bypass Arbitration
On 26 August 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation upheld the validity of an arbitration clause in a shareholder dispute, ruling that a claimant shareholder cannot circumvent a valid arbitration agreement with another shareholder by strategically adding the company itself, which was not a signatory to the shareholder agreement, as a party to the case.
The case involved a dispute between shareholders over profits and share registration for a Jebel Ali Free Zone (“JAFZA”) company. The claimant (respondent in cassation) filed a suit in the Dubai Courts against both his fellow shareholder (the first appellant) and the company itself (the second appellant), seeking profit distributions and registration as a 40% owner (Dubai Court of Cassation, Case No. 956 of 2025, p. 1; “seeking judgment to oblige the appellants… to pay him the amount of AED 6,564,324 in accrued profits and obliging the appellants to register his name in the commercial license of the first appellant company as a partner with a 40% share”). The shareholder agreement, which governed the dispute, contained an arbitration clause, but the company itself was not a party to it.
The Court of Appeal invalidated the arbitration clause on the basis that the dispute involved a true multiplicity of parties because the company was a real party to the dispute, thus granting jurisdiction to the Dubai Courts.
The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected this reasoning and held that the company was not a real party to the dispute as the actual conflict was between the shareholders regarding the terms of their shareholder agreement (p. 2; “the reality of the dispute in the present lawsuit revolves between two partners, the second appellant and the respondent… joining the company is not sufficient to consider it a real party in the lawsuit”). The Court noted that the company could not logically be a party to the contract that established it.
The Court concluded that any orders resulting from the arbitration such as registering the claimant’s shares could be executed by the first appellant who was the company’s director and the registered owner of all its shares, and therefore, joining the company was not necessary (p. 2; “the arbitration award can oblige the second appellant, who is the partner in whose name all the company’s shares are registered and its director, to transfer 40% of his shares to the respondent and register them in his name, without the need to join the first appellant, which proves that it is not a real party”). The Court also concluded that, as the arbitration clause was valid and binding between the shareholders, the Dubai Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Court of Cassation therefore upheld the Court of First Instance’s original dismissal of the case: “the Court affirmed that the Court of First Instance correctly ruled for non-acceptance of the lawsuit due to the existence of an arbitration clause and, in its final order, ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the appealed judgment” (p. 2-3).
Dubai Court of Cassation Rules That Prior Judgment Appointing Arbitrator Does Not Prevent Arbitrator from Declining Jurisdiction
On 16 October 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation, in Case No. 481/2025 (civil), ruled that a prior cassation judgment, which had reversed a lower court’s refusal to appoint an arbitrator, does not create res judicata preventing the arbitral tribunal from subsequently declining jurisdiction. The Court of Cassation reversed a Court of Appeal decision that had annulled an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had violated the res judicata effect of a prior cassation judgment.
The dispute arose from a 2019 distribution agreement containing an arbitration clause with a UAE seat. The parties concluded a settlement agreement in 2022, which provided for Kuwaiti court jurisdiction (“the parties had deviated from it pursuant to the settlement and conciliation agreement dated 2022-10-20; with an express choice of Kuwaiti courts to resolve any disputes arising between them”). In 2023, the claimant filed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator, which the Court of Appeal dismissed on the basis that the arbitration clause no longer existed.
The Dubai Court of Cassation reversed that decision for failure to address the claimant’s defense, and upon remand, the Court of Appeal ordered the appointment of an arbitrator.
The appointed arbitrator subsequently issued an award declining jurisdiction, finding that the distribution agreement had been terminated in all its provisions, including the arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal annulled the award, holding that the arbitrator’s jurisdictional ruling violated the res judicata effect of the prior cassation judgment.
The Dubai Court of Cassation reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the 2023 cassation judgment had not made any binding determination on the arbitration clause’s validity (“The cassation judgment referred to was no more than a finding that the reversed judgment had violated a general rule set forth in Article 129 of the Civil Procedures Law, which requires judgments to contain the reasons on which they are based”). The Court emphasized that, under the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, courts must refrain from addressing arbitral jurisdiction until the tribunal has ruled and that subsequent judicial review remains available at the annulment or enforcement stage. Accordingly, the arbitrator had not violated res judicata.
The Court also concluded that the arbitration clause had been terminated given the parties’ express choice of Kuwaiti courts in the settlement agreement (“Since the distribution agreement was effectively terminated by both parties in all its provisions, including the dispute resolution clause containing the arbitration clause, as evidenced by the express choice of Kuwaiti courts in the subsequent agreement (the settlement agreement) to resolve any disputes arising between them, the arbitration clause in the distribution agreement has been cancelled and is no longer applicable”). Accordingly, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s award declining jurisdiction.
Dubai Court of Cassation Rejects Sanctions-Related Objection and Enforces Award
On 6 November 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, rejecting a series of challenges which included an allegation that sanctions had deprived the respondent of its right to present a defense (Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 420 of 2025, p. 4).
The appellant, a Russian entity, challenged the enforcement on several grounds, arguing that the Dubai Courts lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had no domicile in the UAE, and further that the award violated public policy because the arbitrators did not sign every page of the award. (p. 3-4). The appellant also argued it was denied the right to present its defense because of EU and Swiss sanctions that prevented lawyers from representing Russian entities, and also cited a conflicting judgment from a Russian court, which prohibited the arbitration (p. 5).
The Court rejected these arguments, confirming that the presence of assets in Dubai is enough to grant jurisdiction to the execution judge to enforce a foreign award (p. 4). The Court also ruled that the failure of arbitrators to sign every page of an award is not a violation of public policy (p. 4).
Regarding the sanctions and the Russian court order, the Court held that these did not constitute valid grounds to refuse enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention and stated that the grounds for refusal are exhaustive and must be interpreted narrowly (p. 7). The Court identified one procedural error in that the party seeking enforcement had failed to provide a certified copy of the original arbitration agreement, which is a condition mandated by Article IV of the New York Convention (p. 8). On this ground, the Court of Cassation set aside the lower court’s decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal to verify the submission of this document (p. 8).
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.
