Judgment on Costs and Legal Expenses, Including Attorneys’ Fees (3/10)

4 min 46 sec February 18, 2026 (Edited) الترجمة العربية

Written by

Dr. Hassan Arab

Partner, Regional Head of Dispute Resolution

h.arab@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Hend Al Mehairi

Associate

h.almehairi@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Dina Assar

Senior Knowledge Lawyer

d.assar@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

The Dubai Court of Cassation issued a judgment in Commercial Cassation Appeal No. 821 of 2023 on 05 February 2024 (1), in which it upheld the Court of Appeal’s partial annulment of an arbitral award—specifically in the part related to legal fees (attorneys’ fees). The annulment was based on the reasoning that the arbitration clause did not grant the arbitral tribunal the authority to award legal fees for the parties’ legal representatives, unless there is:

• A legislative provision authorizing such awards,
• An express provision in the rules governing the arbitration, or
• A clear agreement between the parties—either in the arbitration clause or submission agreement—grants the tribunal this authority.

And notably, the arbitration in question was conducted under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). While the ICC rules provide the tribunal with the authority to award costs, expenses, and legal fees, the Court held that the absence of an explicit provision (i.e., specific mention of legal representatives’ fees) was insufficient to grant the tribunal such authority. The Court interpretation was based on Article 46(1) of Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (2).
However, the Dubai Court of Cassation later departed from this strict interpretation in two subsequent rulings:

1. One case involved arbitration under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules, where the Court found that these rules explicitly empower the tribunal to award legal costs, including attorneys’ fees (3).
2. In a more recent ruling in Commercial Cassation Appeal No. 7 of 2024 (annulment of an arbitral award) dated 18 April 2024, the Court reaffirmed the same principle—this time in the context of the ICC Rules.

Conclusion:

This subsequent approach of the Dubai Court of Cassation reflects the judiciary’s orientation toward supporting the international commercial arbitration framework by establishing principles that are supportive of, and consistent with, international best practices. These principles, along with other arbitration-friendly principles, also reflect the direction of the United Arab Emirates and the Emirate of Dubai toward supporting arbitration both legislatively and judicially, with the aim of making the UAE an international destination and preferred choice as a leading legal seat for the resolution of international disputes, particularly international commercial arbitration.

In conclusion, the judgments of the Dubai Court of Cassation demonstrate a clear development in judicial reasoning toward strengthening the arbitration framework in the United Arab Emirates. After initially adopting a restrictive interpretation of the arbitral tribunal’s authority to award legal fees, the Court later affirmed the tribunal’s power to do so under both the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. This shift reflects a more arbitration-friendly approach, aligned with international practices, and confirms Dubai’s position as a leading and reliable global seat of arbitration, offering clarity, stability, and confidence to the parties involved.

(1) It is well established in the jurisprudence of this Court that fees, expenses, and legal costs may not be imposed or charged upon any party to an arbitration except pursuant to a provision derived from the law—whether a legislative text, a general legal principle, or an express and clear stipulation in the arbitration agreement itself. This is because arbitration constitutes a consensual form of adjudication, in which the arbitral tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the arbitration clause contained in the agreement concluded between the parties.

(2) Article 38 (1) and (3)–(5):

(1) The costs of the arbitration shall include the fees and expenses of the arbitrators, the administrative expenses of the International Chamber of Commerce as determined by the Court in accordance with the scales in force at the time the arbitration is commenced, as well as the fees and expenses of any experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal, and the reasonable legal and other costs incurred by the parties for the purposes of the arbitration.

(5) In making decisions relating to costs, the arbitral tribunal may take into account any circumstances it considers relevant, including the extent to which each party has conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.

(3) -n Commercial Appeal No. 1497 of 2024, dated on 6 February 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation held as follows:

The provision of Article 36(1) of the Rules of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, under the heading “Costs of Arbitration,” which states that “the costs of arbitration shall include, inter alia, the registration fees in accordance with the Rules, the Centre’s administrative fees, the fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal, experts—whether appointed by the parties or by the arbitral tribunal—the fees of legal representatives and any expenses incurred by them, in addition to the costs of any other party as assessed and determined by the arbitral tribunal,” demonstrates, in accordance with the settled principles of statutory interpretation, that the DIAC Arbitration Rules have clearly identified and detailed the costs of arbitration that the arbitral tribunal is entitled to award and include in the arbitral award. These costs expressly include the fees of the legal representatives of the parties to the arbitration, meaning that the arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine the costs of the parties’ legal representatives, namely attorneys’ fees, in their capacity as the legal representatives of the parties before the tribunal.

“As it was established, without dispute between the parties, that they had agreed to apply the DIAC Arbitration Rules to the arbitral dispute forming the subject of the proceedings, and had agreed that the provisions of those Rules would govern the arbitral dispute under challenge, and since the Rules confer upon the arbitral tribunal the authority to award the fees of the parties’ legal representatives and to determine such fees at its discretion, the actions of the arbitral tribunal that rendered the challenged award—being legally empowered to determine the request—are firmly grounded in law. Accordingly, the challenge is devoid of legal basis and must be dismissed”.