The first Law Update of 2024 is here, and our first focus of the year spotlights Healthcare and Lifesciences, a sector that is undergoing significant growth and development across the MENA region.
Our focus provides an insight into some of the most important regulatory updates across the region, such as the UAE’s groundbreaking law on the use of human genome, Kuwait’s resolution on nuclear and radioactive materials, the new regulations for healthcare services in Qatar, Egypt’s healthcare regulatory framework, and the impact of the Saudi Civil Transactions Law on the healthcare and life sciences sector … and there is so much more!
Beyond the healthcare pages our lawyers share with you multi-sector insights where you will discover articles on Dubai’s DIFC regulatory framework for startups, Bahrain’s commercial agencies law, and we also shed light on Kuwaiti civil code and the advantages of setting up a joint stock company in Saudi Arabia.Read the full edition
Suzanne Abdallah - Senior Associate - Litigation
Jurisdiction is an extremely important issue that should be taken into consideration:
a) prior to concluding any contract;
b) at the conclusion of a contract; and
c) whenever a dispute arises that requires recourse to the courts.
According to the relevant articles of the UAE Constitution and the UAE Civil Procedure Law (the “CPL”), any legal action must be filed before the courts of the relevant Emirate having jurisdiction, failing which the court may dismiss the action on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. This is because most jurisdictional issues are classified as Public Order matters which the courts should address sua sponte even if the parties themselves do not address them.
However, the failure of a practitioner (the “practitioner”) to determine the competent court to file a claim will result in the loss of time, effort and money and could negatively affect the practitioner’s prospects of success if the court dismisses the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction; such a situation will embarrass the practitioner as it would reflect his failure to fulfil his professional research obligations at an appropriately early stage (i.e. not sufficiently considering the available facts and law during the pre-suit stage).
In order to avoid such an undesired situation a practitioner should take into consideration the correct interpretation of the court’s domestic jurisdiction of section 5 stated below that we will shed light on in this article, particularly in terms of the common practice/understanding (the “Common Understanding”) and the extent to which it can be applied in light of the precedents issued from the Dubai Court of Cassation.
Section 5 of article 31 of the CPL provides that:
“In circumstances other than those stipulated in Article 32 and Articles 34 to 39, it may be agreed that a particular court will have competence to hear a dispute. In this event, competence lies with this court or the court in the jurisdiction of which the defendant has an address, place of residence or place or work”.
It is clear from this article that parties can agree to have their case adjudicated before a certain court that originally had no jurisdiction or was not locally competent (hereinafter the “Selected Court”), except in the following circumstances:
A quick reading of section 5 supports the idea that, in circumstances other than those stipulated in article 32 and articles 34-39 of the CPL, parties can agree to bring the competence to the selected court to adjudicate any dispute that might arise between them during the execution of their contract. In this event, competence lies with this selected court or the courts in the jurisdiction where the defendant has an address, place of residence or place or work.
Due to the misinterpretation of section 5 of article 31 during the contracting stage, parties used to incorporate a clause in their contracts whereby they gave the Dubai Courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that might arise of or in connection to their contracts, even though the Dubai Courts had no original jurisdiction as a matter of law (de jure) (the “Clause”).
The core question here is:
Will the Dubai Courts recognise the Clause and adjudicate the case?
The Dubai Court of Cassation has answered this question and put an end to the confusion and the misinterpretation of section 5 of article 31.It laid down principles that totally contradict the Common Understanding, which can be summarized as follows:
The Dubai Courts represent a judicial system that is independent from the federal judicial system and other legal systems of the UAE. The Dubai Courts must abide by the limitations imposed on their jurisdiction and may not actively or passively transgress those limitations. They may not give up their jurisdiction or oust the jurisdiction of another national court. Such jurisdiction, being constitutionally conferred, is a rule of public policy in respect of which no agreement may be made to the contrary. Accordingly, it is not a matter of local jurisdiction to be decided only by the court that is part of the same judicial system and it has to be addressed by the court sua sponte for the purposes of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. An agreement between the parties to apply the laws of the Emirate of Dubai does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon its courts.
Index: Jurisdiction – Exclusive Jurisdiction
Principle, 2010 Issue (Civil) set out in the decision that was handed down by the Dubai Court of Cassation on 14.03.10 in Property Appeal No. 58-2009
Furthermore, when applying the above article, the Dubai Court of Cassation distinguish between the competence of the judicial institutions in the Emirate of Dubai and the Federal one, on the ground that the courts in the Emirate of Dubai are independent from the federal judicial systems; and hence section 5 of article 31 of the CPL shall not be applicable in terms of the jurisdiction whenever it brings the competence to the Dubai Courts from a federal court or vice-versa. According to the Court of Cassation, this matter is related to public policy that parties cannot contractually agree to depart from and shall not, in any case, be considered a question of local jurisdiction.
In line with the above, the Dubai Court of Cassation, in case 36/2007 and 39/2007 civil appeal held that:
“it has been settled by this court that the courts in the Emirate of Dubai are independent from the federal judicial systems and the former shall not override their competence and shall not transgress it positively or negatively; consequently, the court shall not waive its competence and shall not take away the competence of another local court; As this type of judicial competence is related to public order and the court shall decide on it sua sponte in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not to adjudicate the case”.