The Dubai Court of Cassation Issues a Judgment Affirming Key Principles on International Commercial Arbitration (2/10)

2 min 9 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

Dina Assar

Senior Knowledge Lawyer

d.assar@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

The Dubai Court of Cassation issued its judgment in Commercial Cassation Appeal No. 1406 of 2023, Commercial Appeal, dated 28 November 2023.
In this judgment, the Court emphasised several core principles regarding international commercial arbitration and reaffirmed the UAE judiciary’s pro-arbitration stance, including:

1. Freedom of parties to determine procedural rules: The Parties are free to agree on the procedural rules that govern any existing arbitration proceedings arising or to arise between them.
2. Waiver of objections not raised before the arbitral tribunal: A party may not raise a plea or objection before the court hearing the annulment action if it was possible to raise and assert it earlier before the arbitral tribunal. Otherwise, it shall be deemed a waiver of that objection.
3. Arbitral Tribunal’s authority to appoint experts: The arbitral tribunal has full authority to appoint an expert or experts to examine specific issues necessary for resolving the dispute before it. The tribunal may consult with the parties and present them with a draft of the expert’s terms of reference to ensure the expert fulfills their role appropriately.
4. No requirement for an expert to take an Oath: If the arbitral tribunal appoints an expert to perform their duties in accordance with the terms of reference assigned to them, the expert is not required to take an oath prior to commencing the task. This is true even if the tribunal later relies on the expert’s opinion in its award, so long as the procedural rules agreed upon by the parties do not mandate that the expert must take an oath before undertaking their assignment. Furthermore, this requirement does not contradict any mandatory rule or public policy in the United Arab Emirates.
5. The Dubai Court of Cassation appears to have intended to distinguish between two scenarios:
   1. The first scenario is when the expert report is submitted by one of the parties to the arbitration. In such a case, the expert is considered a witness presented by the party relying on the report. Therefore, if the arbitral tribunal wishes to use that report as evidence, the expert must take an oath, especially if the applicable law deems the administration of an oath to a witness as a mandatory rule related to public policy.
   2. The second scenario is when the arbitral tribunal itself appoints the expert, and the rules of the arbitral institution do not require the expert to take an oath. In this case, administering an oath is not necessary, and the tribunal may rely on the expert report as evidence in the proceedings without obligating the expert to take an oath before commencing their assignment.