Landmark Judicial Interpretations of the Seat of Arbitration in the UAE: Insights from the Dubai and Abu Dhabi Courts of Cassation (5/10)

5 min 30 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 significant and distinguished ruling in support of international arbitration [1]. This judgment addressed several important issues that arbitration practitioners have long awaited judicial interpretation on, especially concerning procedural legal concepts related to arbitration in a manner consistent with international standards and practices. A key topic discussed was the concept of the “Seat of Arbitration.” The court elaborated in detail on this concept, distinguishing between the seat as a physical location for holding arbitration sessions or conducting certain procedures—such as witness hearings or tribunal deliberations—and the seat as a legal concept, i.e., the legal domicile of the arbitration and the consequences of selecting a particular seat as the legal base of the arbitration.

When Dubai is chosen as the legal seat of arbitration, it does not necessarily require the arbitral tribunal to hold hearings or deliberations in Dubai itself. The legal seat is primarily linked to the procedural law governing the arbitration and identifies the courts that have supervisory jurisdiction, including authority to assist the tribunal in procedural matters or to hear annulment claims against the arbitral award.

Furthermore, if the parties agree that Dubai is the legal seat, it does not matter if the arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties has its headquarters in a location different from the legal seat—because assuming that the institution’s location defines the arbitration seat is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. This misunderstanding led both Dubai and Abu Dhabi courts to previously conflate the physical location of arbitration with the legal seat. I.e. if the arbitration institution, whose rules the parties have agreed to subject their arbitration dispute to, has its headquarters in a specific place different from the legal seat of arbitration, so that it is said that the location of the institution’s headquarters is the place of arbitration, this concept is not accurate and has led to the courts of Dubai and the courts of Abu Dhabi falling into confusion as a result of mixing between the concept of the place of arbitration as a physical location at times, and as a concept and idea connected to the legal seat and the consequences that follow from that, as we mentioned previously.

For instance, Dubai courts, during the existence of the DIFC-LCIA arbitration institution (based in the DIFC), has revealed the distinction between the physical place and legal seat of arbitration when parties agreed the application of the rules of the DIFC-LCIA arbitration institution, where Dubai courts used to decline jurisdiction over recognition or annulment proceedings for awards issued under DIFC-LCIA rules, even if the arbitration agreement stipulated Dubai as the seat. They argued that because the institution to subject the case to its rules was based in the DIFC, jurisdiction fell to the DIFC Courts. This was a clear misinterpretation of the legal seat versus the physical venue.

Abu Dhabi courts similarly erred when they declined jurisdiction over a case to ratify an arbitral award issued under the ICC Rules, despite the parties having agreed that Abu Dhabi was the legal seat. The court held that, because the ICC had a representative office in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), jurisdiction over the arbitration award lay with the ADGM Courts.

Finally, in a recent ruling by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, the court rejected an appeal brought before it regarding the annulment of an arbitral award subject to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)[2], where the court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the annulment action on the basis that the arbitration agreement did not specify the place of arbitration (Seat of Arbitration), and therefore the authority to determine the place shifted to the arbitral tribunal, given that the parties agreed to subject their arbitration dispute to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Accordingly, the rules grant the tribunal the authority to determine the place as the legal seat of arbitration in the absence of an agreement specifying the place of arbitration, and there was nothing improper in the tribunal’s choice of Paris as the place of arbitration.

To summarise, Abu Dhabi courts appear to have applied two approaches in ICC arbitrations: (i) where the parties designate Abu Dhabi as the legal seat, some decisions have treated jurisdiction as lying with the ADGM Courts on the basis of the ICC’s representative office in the ADGM; and (ii) where the tribunal designates a foreign seat under the ICC Rules (in the absence of party specification), Abu Dhabi courts decline jurisdiction in favour of the courts at the seat, as in the case referenced above.

[1] In Commercial Appeal No. 756 of 2024, decided on 19 November 2024, the Court held that there is no necessary connection between the legal seat of arbitration—as a purely legal concept—and the actual geographical location where arbitral hearings are conducted, as the latter produces no legal effect. Likewise, there is no relationship between arbitral institutions and their rules and the determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an annulment action, which is determined solely by reference to the legal seat of arbitration. Accordingly, no weight whatsoever is to be given to the location of the arbitral institution when determining the court competent to hear an annulment action; rather, decisive consideration is given to what the parties have expressly agreed upon when selecting the legal seat of arbitration.

[2] In Commercial Appeal No. 1305 of 2024, the Court noted that Article 1 of the Arbitration Law defines the “court” referred to in the provisions of the Law as the federal or local court of appeal agreed upon by the parties, or the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the arbitration is conducted. As the parties had not agreed—either in the arbitration agreement or in any subsequent agreement—on the court competent to hear an action for annulment, the competent court is the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the arbitration took place. Consequently, jurisdiction to hear the annulment action falls, as a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction, within the courts of Abu Dhabi, pursuant to Article 1 of the Arbitration Law referred to above.

“Given that the arbitration agreements contained in the original contracts did not specify the place of arbitration, the arbitrator exercised his authority to determine it in accordance with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, as also provided under Article 28 of the Arbitration Law. Accordingly, the arbitrator issued a decision designating Paris as the seat of arbitration, where the arbitration proceedings were conducted until the arbitral award—forming the subject of the annulment action—was rendered in Paris”.