Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 137 of 2025, judgment of 13 March 2025
Under Articles 55 and 57 of the Federal Arbitration Law, an award may be challenged either by an action for annulment or during the application to confirm and enforce it. A party who has not sued for annulment may still object to the enforcement order by a grievance to the Court of Appeal within 30 days of notification of the order, relying on any of the annulment grounds in Article 53(1). That right is not cut down by the 30-day limit for annulment actions, which runs from notification of the award: each route has its own time limit and purpose. A successful grievance only refuses enforcement; it does not annul the award, which keeps its res judicata effect.
An award was made on 16 June 2024 in an arbitration under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre. The tribunal later issued an additional award correcting calculation errors, which reduced the amount due. On 8 October 2024 the winning party applied for, and obtained, an order confirming and enforcing the original award, and on the same day it sued to annul the additional award (an action that later succeeded). The losing party filed a grievance against the enforcement order, arguing that the winner had concealed the correcting award from the judge. The Court of Appeal held the grievance inadmissible: it treated it as a disguised annulment action filed more than 30 days after the award was notified, and said the losing party had accepted the award by asking the tribunal to correct it.
The Court of Cassation allowed the appeal. The characterisation of a claim depends on what is really sought and on its legal basis, and is subject to review in cassation. Article 55(2) directs the court to confirm and enforce an award within 60 days unless it finds an annulment ground under Article 53(1), and Article 57 allows a grievance against the order within 30 days of its notification. A party who has not sued for annulment keeps the right to resist enforcement on those grounds through the grievance, and that right is not limited by the separate 30-day period for annulment actions. A grievance aims only at refusing executory force and leaves the award and its res judicata intact. The losing party had relied on the Article 53(1) grounds as reasons to refuse enforcement, not to annul. Requesting corrections did not show acceptance, and the winner's own annulment action did not bar the grievance. The judgment was quashed and the case remitted.
Award debtors who miss the short deadline for an annulment action are not left without a remedy: they can still oppose enforcement on the same grounds within 30 days of being notified of the enforcement order. Award creditors can expect such objections at the enforcement stage, particularly where additional or correcting awards were not disclosed.
| Articles 53(1), 55 and 57 of Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration — text of articles 53, 55, 57 |
“فلا يسقط الحق في التظلم من قرار المحكمة بالأمر بتنفيذ حكم التحكيم ولو كان مستندًا إلى تحقق سبب أو أكثر من الأسباب سالفة البيان ، إلا إذا انقضت مدة ثلاثون يومًا من اليوم التالي للإعلان بالقرار”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
Closure of a DIAC arbitration file for unpaid costs does not extinguish the arbitration clause
The General Assembly unanimously abandoned the earlier view that closure of a Dubai International Arbitration Centre case for unpaid costs makes the arbitration clause la…
An arbitration clause binds only its parties, and enforcing a cheque in Dubai courts can waive it
A party who relies on an arbitration agreement must raise it before making any request or defence on the merits (Article 8(1) of the Federal Arbitration Law). The right t…
An optional arbitration clause does not oust the courts, and the new five-year limit for traders runs from 2023
An agreement to arbitrate is not presumed: its wording must show that the parties made arbitration the only way to resolve their disputes. A clause that sits alongside th…
The agreed legal seat, not the institution or its rules, decides which court hears an action to annul an award
The seat (legal place) of arbitration is the jurisdiction in which the arbitration takes place, and it determines the law governing the procedure, the court supervising t…
The 30-day limit for annulling an award runs only from the tribunal's notification of it to that party
Article 54(2) of the Federal Arbitration Law bars an annulment action brought more than 30 days after the award is notified to the party seeking annulment, and Article 44…
An LLC manager may agree to arbitration for the company, and silence during the arbitration waives objections
A party that continues with an arbitration knowing of a breach of the arbitration agreement or of a non-mandatory rule, without objecting in time, waives its objection. C…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →