A cassation appeal is admissible if fees and deposit are paid within the appeal period, even after three working days

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 1 of 2026 (Civil), decision of 28 January 2026

Court
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassationمحكمة النقض - أبوظبي
Case
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 1 of 2026 (Civil), decision of 28 January 2026
Arabic citation
الطلب رقم 1 لسنة 2026 هيئة عامة مدني، جلسة 28/1/2026
Bench
General Assembly of the court General Assembly
Topics
Courts & arbitration
Laws applied
Civil Procedure Code
The judgment
Read it on adjd.gov.ae ↗ (ADJD Court of Cassation Technical Office, 'Collection of judgments and decisions of the General Assembly over two decades since the establishment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation' (2026), decision no. 34, pp. 216-219 (ADJD publications library, document 0901d61786449d2a))
Summary written
31 October 2026
Print

The principle

Articles 179 and 181 of the Civil Procedure Law require the appellant in cassation to pay the court fee in full and lodge the security deposit within three working days of notice of the fee assessment. A late payment does not make the appeal inadmissible if it is made within the time limit for appealing. Payment within the three working days is also valid even if the appeal period has by then expired, provided the statement of appeal was filed in time. Only payment after both the three days and the appeal period have expired makes the appeal inadmissible.

The case and the decision

The First Commercial Chamber referred two conflicting lines of authority on appeals in cassation where the appellant paid the security deposit more than three working days after being notified of the fee assessment. One line declared such appeals inadmissible even if payment was made before the time limit for appealing had expired; the other admitted them as long as payment was made within that time limit.

The General Assembly noted that Articles 179 and 181 of the Civil Procedure Law surround the cassation appeal with procedural conditions: the appeal is not validly registered until the fee is paid in full and the deposit lodged, and the law expressly requires both within three working days of the fee notice; non-compliance makes the appeal inadmissible and is a matter of procedural public order. It distinguished four situations: payment within the three days and within the appeal period; payment after the three days but within the appeal period; payment within the three days but after the appeal period; and payment after both. Where payment is made within the appeal period, the appeal is lodged as Article 179(1) requires, whether or not the three days were met. The same applies to payment within the three days even if the appeal period has expired, because the law sets the three-day period without tying it to the appeal period. Only in the fourth situation is the appeal not lodged as required. Procedural rules must be interpreted according to their purpose, and inadmissibility should follow only where the breach goes to the essence of the rule and defeats the procedural discipline it serves.

The General Assembly adopted the principle that an appeal is duly lodged when fee and deposit are paid within the cassation time limit, regardless of the three working days, and also when they are paid within the three working days after the notice even if the appeal period has expired, provided the statement of appeal was filed within time.

Why it matters

Losing a cassation appeal on a payment technicality can end a commercial dispute. The decision gives appellants and their counsel a clear and more forgiving rule: what matters is that the statement of appeal is filed in time and that the fee and deposit are paid either within the appeal period or within three working days of the fee notice.

Laws applied

Articles 179 and 181 of Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Law) — text of articles 179, 181
Article 9 of Abu Dhabi Law No. 6 of 2024 on the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department

In the court’s words

“الحالة الوحيدة، من بين الحالات المذكورة، التي يعتبر فيها الطعن مقدماً على خلاف ما هو مقرر بالبند”

Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.

Related judgments

A respondent's counter-appeal must be filed by the first case-management hearing, even within thirty days

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Commercial 975/2022 · 7 February 2023

Under Article 164 of the former Civil Procedure Law (as amended in 2018), a respondent to an appeal may lodge its own appeal, by ordinary procedure or by a memorandum wit…

Bundled claims arising from separate causes are valued one by one for the AED 500,000 cassation threshold

Abu Dhabi Cassation — General Assembly 5/2023 · 30 October 2023

A judgment of the Court of Appeal can be challenged in cassation only if the claim exceeds AED 500,000 or is of unassessable value (Article 175(1) of the Civil Procedure …

A bounced cheque is an execution title only when returned for no or insufficient funds (later overruled federally)

Abu Dhabi Cassation — General Assembly 4/2023 · 30 October 2023

Article 667(1) of the Commercial Transactions Law makes a cheque that the bank has marked as unpaid for lack or insufficiency of funds an execution title that the holder …

A dismissal without the written investigation required by Article 44 leaves the employer liable for notice pay

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Labour 80/2023 · 20 December 2023

An employer may dismiss a worker without notice under Article 44 of the Labour Relations Law only after a written investigation and, for repeated breach of duties, two wa…

Contracting parties cannot sue each other in tort for breach, and departing from expert findings needs sound reasons

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Labour 7/2024 · 13 March 2024

Where the injured party and the party responsible are linked by a prior contract, the claim for compensation cannot be based on tort, because that would override the cont…

A claim filed against a deceased person can be cured by joining the heirs; rescinded partnership refunds net of sums received

Abu Dhabi Cassation — General Assembly 1/2024 · 20 March 2024

A claim or appeal brought against a person who had already died is not void beyond repair: it may be corrected by joining the heirs at the same level of court, by a memor…

Source. Summary written by Polaris from the judgment published by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on adjd.gov.ae (ADJD Court of Cassation Technical Office, 'Collection of judgments and decisions of the General Assembly over two decades since the establishment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation' (2026), decision no. 34, pp. 216-219 (ADJD publications library, document 0901d61786449d2a)), read on 31 October 2026. Party names are anonymised in the court’s publication.
Published for general information by Polaris Corporate Services FZ-LLC. It is not legal advice. This page is a summary written by Polaris; it is not the judgment and is not an official translation. Read the judgment on the court’s official service before relying on it. A judgment decides the dispute before the court; its weight in a later case depends on the court, the facts and any later change in the law or in the court’s own case law.

Begin a Conversation

Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.

Arrange a Consultation →