Recent Judgment: No Cassation Appeal Against Appellate Decisions on Orders for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards

Introduction

On the 18 December 2025, the General Assembly (Civil) of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation adopted an authoritative principle in Request No. 6 of 2025 (Public Authority – Civil – Arbitration). Acting as the highest judicial authority within the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, the General Assembly (Civil) of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation issued a landmark decision holding that cassation appeals are inadmissible against appellate judgments rendered in proceedings concerning orders on petition for the enforcement of foreign judgments, foreign orders, and foreign arbitral awards.

The decision unifies the approach within the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation while acknowledging divergence across other emirates. This divergence raises a fundamental question regarding the uniform interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law across the UAE.

Legal Background

Federal Decree Law No. 42 of 2022 promulgating the Civil Procedure Law reconfigured the procedural pathway for the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.

Pursuant to Articles 222 and 223, applications for the enforcement of foreign judgments, foreign orders, and foreign arbitral awards issued abroad must be submitted by way of an order on petition to the execution judge. The execution judge is required to issue the order within five working days from the date of submission, and the order is directly appealable before the Court of Appeal in accordance with the rules governing appeals against judgments.

This mechanism reflects the same approach previously adopted under Articles 85 and 86 of the Executive Regulations of the former Civil Procedure Law (as amended in 2021) and departs from the repealed procedural framework, which treated such enforcement applications as ordinary claims before the Court of First Instance.

Legal Characterisation of Orders on Petition

Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Law classifies orders issued on petition as subject to grievance and then appeal, unless the law provides otherwise, and confirms that the decision on grievance is subject only to appeal.

The General Assembly (Civil) of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation emphasised that the legislator’s choice in Article 222 to dispense with the grievance stage and to allow direct appeal does not alter the intrinsic legal nature of the execution judge’s decision as an order on petition. Consequently, even where Article 222 forgoes a grievance and permits direct appeal, the order remains an order on petition, including the limitations imposed on the available methods of challenge.

The Holding: Inadmissibility of Cassation Appeals

The General Assembly held that, absent an express legislative authorisation, cassation review does not extend to appellate judgments issued in respect of orders on petition relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments and foreign arbitral awards.

The court reasoned that the absence of any explicit authorisation for cassation appeals in Article 222 was interpreted as a deliberate legislative choice to confine judicial review to a single appellate level. Had the legislator intended to allow cassation review, it would have expressly provided for it. Consequently, cassation appeals against appellate judgments issued in respect of orders on petition relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards were held to be inadmissible.

Distinction from Pure Execution Disputes

The General Assembly further clarified that its previously established principle under Article 175(3) of the Civil Procedure Law which limits the inadmissibility of cassation appeals to judgments issued in “pure execution” disputes does not extend to proceedings concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.

This distinction was grounded in the fact that the legislator subjected enforcement applications of this nature to the order on petition mechanism rather than ordinary litigation. As a result, such proceedings are governed exclusively by the procedural rules applicable to orders on petition, which permit appeal but exclude cassation review.

Conflict with Other Established Cassation Jurisprudence

Notwithstanding its internal coherence, the principle adopted by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation – General Assembly stands in contrast with established cassation jurisprudence in other emirates.

The Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation has affirmed the admissibility of cassation appeals against appellate decisions rendered in respect of orders enforcing foreign judgments and foreign arbitral awards. This position was expressly confirmed in Civil Cassation No. 22 of 2023, where the court treated such enforcement decisions as judicial determinations susceptible to cassation review, particularly where the dispute concerned the enforceability of the foreign executive instrument itself.

Similarly, the ruling of the Abu Dhabi General Assembly conflicts with the principle adopted by the General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation in Judgment No. 4 of 2021, which recognised that cassation review remains available in enforcement–related matters when the dispute transcends mere execution procedures and engages substantive issues relating to the executive title.

This divergence demonstrates that emirate-level courts have adopted differing methodologies: Abu Dhabi is pursuing a policy of procedural efficiency by shortening the enforcement trajectory for foreign decisions and awards, thereby limiting multilayered review and facilitating prompt execution.

Necessity of Referral to the Federal Authority for the Unification of Judicial Principles

Given that conflicting principles emanate from courts of cassation and general assemblies in different emirates, ordinary judicial development cannot unify the law. Resolution lies with the Federal Authority for the Unification of Judicial Principles. Crucially, this authority may exercise its jurisdiction only upon the submission of a formal request in accordance with the statutory procedures prescribed by law. Until such referral occurs and a unifying principle is issued, the divergence will persist, with each emirate-bound judiciary applying its own binding precedent. The 2025 General Assembly (Civil) of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation adopted the principle that cassation appeals are inadmissible against judgments issued by the Court of Appeal in respect of orders on petition relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments, foreign orders, and foreign arbitral awards issued abroad.

Conclusion

The Abu Dhabi General Assembly‘s decision reflects a clear legislative and judicial policy within the Emirate of Abu Dhabi which aims to simplify and accelerate the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards by restricting challenges to a single appellate level.

At the same time, the ruling exposes a lack of uniformity in the application of cassation principles across the UAE which only the Federal Authority for the Unification of Judicial Principles can ultimately reconcile. Until such unification occurs, practitioners must tailor their strategies to the forum’s governing principles and take into account other considerations before seeking to enforce foreign judgments and arbitral awards in different emirates.

How can we help?

For more information on the above alert, feel free to contact the key contacts.