This issue is filled with great insights and expert commentary on areas that are relevant to the legal landscape and highlight how the business community is embracing technology, media and telecommunications. There are various topics covered, from new ways of working and digital transformation in the finance sector to data protection regulatory updates and guidance. We also have a series of articles that focus on e-commerce across a number of jurisdictions.
You will also find insights from our lawyers around real estate analytics, tech trends, and data centres.
We hope this edition of Law Update provides some useful food for thought – enjoy the read!Take a read of the edition
Suzanne Abdallah - Senior Associate - Litigation
Party A requested the Court to ratify an arbitral award issued on 18 June 2008 in which the Defendant Parties were ordered to jointly and severally pay AED 843,912 plus 9% legal interest from 12 July 2003 until full payment. Party A was also awarded its legal costs in the amount of AED 30,000.
Party A submitted that it had entered into a Sub Contracting Agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant Parties and that the Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Party A’s obligations under the Agreement were to execute carpentry work, being the supply and installation of wooden doors and cupboards in a residential complex in Sharjah. Party A pleaded that it had carried out all the works as stipulated in the Agreement but that the Defendant Parties refused to make the final installment payment, amounting to AED 843,912. Parties B and C requested the court to dismiss the case for the existence of an arbitration clause. Accordingly, Party A amended its plea and requested the court to appoint an arbitrator. As stated above, Party A received an arbitral award to this effect in its favor.
Consequently, a representative of the Defendant Parties filed an interlocutory application before the Court, requesting that the Court set aside the arbitral award. A number of grounds were put forward in support of the application:
Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance dismissed Party A’s plea that the award be enforced and ruled in favor of the Defendant Parties. Consequently Party A appealed to the Court of Appeal. Although the award was set aside, the Defendant Parties also appealed on the basis the Court of First Instance had failed to adequately address the Defendant Parties’ reasons for arguing that the award be set aside.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance’s decision and ratified the arbitral award. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant Parties’ interlocutory claim. Subsequently, the Defendant Parties appealed to the Court of Cassation.
Court of Cassation
The Defendant Parties argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Defendant Parties put forward a number of propositions in support of this plea:
With respect to the Defendant Parties’ first argument, the Court of Cassation repeated a long established principle that a most essential element of an arbitration award is the signature, on the award, of the arbitrators who have issued the award. The Court further explained that from a legal point of view; the signature is the only evidence of the existence of the award, and must refer to both the ultimate decision and the grounds reached in support of that ultimate decision. Essentially, a failure by the arbitrator to sign each page of the award would render that award invalid.
The Court of Cassation found one exception to this crucial and important rule. Where the grounds or reasoning for the ultimate decision are continued on the same page as the relief ultimately ordered, and the page containing the ultimate relief is signed, that signature shall be deemed to cover the reasoning for the granting of the relief.
If the reasoning and grounds for the ultimate decision and the ultimate decision itself appear on separate pages, then all pages of the award should be signed by all arbitrators. Failing this, such award shall be invalid.
In this case, the final page of the award, which contained the ultimate decision, also contained part of the reasoning for the ultimate decision. The final page was signed; therefore the signature was deemed to cover both the grounds for the ultimate decision and the ultimate decision itself. Importantly, the Court of Cassation ruled that the format of the award complied with Article 212.
The Defendant Parties’ second argument was dismissed. The Court of Cassation determined that an arbitration agreement is capable of either being incorporated as a clause (“arbitration clause”) in the contract between parties or as a separate independent agreement in the course of a dispute between both parties (this is not to be confused, however, with the doctrine of separability which prescribes that an arbitration clause in a contract is to be treated as separate from that main contract). Importantly, the Court of Cassation held that when the arbitration agreement is incorporated as a clause in the contract it exempts the participants from drafting a separate independent agreement or terms of reference in order to validate the procedure.
In this case, the Court of Cassation found that because the Court of First Instance had appointed the arbitrator on the basis that the Agreement contained an arbitration clause, there was no need to enter into separate terms of reference.
From a further procedural standpoint, the Court of Cassation held that there was no provision in the law requiring the arbitrator to document, in the minutes of the arbitration hearings, that he had submitted terms of reference to the parties for their signature.
The Defendant Parties’ third and final argument was also dismissed. The Court of Cassation, with reference to Article 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, held as follows:
The Court found that the arbitrator had requested an extension from the Court within the 6 month period of the proceedings. In this regard, the Defendant Parties’ time bar argument was dismissed.