Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Appeal No. 4 of 2021, judgment of 6 April 2021
Article 173(3) of the former Civil Procedure Law made appeal judgments 'in execution proceedings' final, but that covers only disputes about pure enforcement steps. A ruling on whether a foreign judgment qualifies for enforcement under Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Regulation decides a prior legal question, not an enforcement step, so the appeal judgment on an order to enforce a foreign judgment may be challenged in cassation. Where a treaty applies, its conditions govern (Article 88): under Article 30 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, recognition is refused if a default judgment was given without the defendant being properly served with the claim and the judgment, and the execution judge must verify that service as a substantive condition.
A contracting company obtained a judgment against a Dubai company from a court of first instance in Tripoli, Libya, and then an order from the Dubai execution judge declaring it enforceable. The Court of Appeal upheld the order. The Dubai company appealed in cassation; the respondent argued that the appeal was inadmissible because Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Regulation allows only an appeal against such orders. The First Civil Chamber referred the appeal to the General Assembly because earlier judgments conflicted on that point.
The Assembly considered Article 173(3) of the Civil Procedure Law, which makes appeal judgments in execution proceedings not open to cassation, and Article 85 of the Regulation, issued by Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018, which allows enforcement of foreign judgments on reciprocal terms, by petition to the execution judge whose order may be appealed, and only after verifying that UAE courts lacked exclusive jurisdiction, the foreign court had jurisdiction, the judgment was duly authenticated, the parties were summoned and represented, it has become final, and it does not conflict with a UAE judgment or public order. It held that 'judgments in execution proceedings' are those on pure enforcement steps; decisions on whether a foreign judgment meets those conditions settle a prior legal question and are not of that kind, so they may be challenged in cassation. By the required majority it adopted the judgments allowing cassation.
On the merits, treaties ratified by the UAE apply as domestic law and prevail. Libya is a party to the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, ratified by Federal Decree No. 53 of 1999, Article 30 of which requires refusal of a default judgment where the defendant was not properly served with the claim and the judgment. The Libyan judgment had been given by default; the claim and judgment had been handed to the Libyan prosecution for service through diplomatic channels, as Libyan law provides, but there was no proof that they reached the Dubai company. The Assembly quashed the judgment and, deciding the appeal, cancelled the enforcement order and rejected the request.
Foreign creditors seeking to enforce judgments in Dubai, and UAE companies resisting them, can take disputes about recognition up to the Court of Cassation. Default judgments obtained abroad against UAE companies are refused unless the claimant proves that the claim and the judgment actually reached the defendant through the prescribed channel.
| Article 173(3) of Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 (former Civil Procedure Law) Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Procedure Code. |
| Articles 85 and 88 of Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Civil Procedure Law Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Procedure Code. |
| Article 30 of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, ratified by Federal Decree No. 53 of 1999 |
| Article 20 of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2016 on the Judicial Authority in the Emirate of Dubai (referral to and majority of the General Assembly) |
“بما يجوز الطعن في الحكم الصادر بشأنها بطريق التمييز”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
A payment order requires a valid prior demand on each debtor, and one co-debtor's personal defect does not free the others
Under Article 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Regulation (Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018), a creditor must first serve on the debtor a demand to pay within at least five …
The payment-order procedure is mandatory for qualifying debts, but an ordinary claim is admissible once a serious dispute arises
Under Article 62 of the Civil Procedure Regulation (Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018, as amended by Cabinet Resolution No. 33 of 2020), a creditor must use the payment-o…
Where no rate is agreed, Dubai courts award legal and delay interest at 5 per cent a year
Where the parties have not agreed on an interest rate, interest on an adjudged debt, whether 'legal' interest or delay (late-payment) interest, is calculated at 5 per cen…
A grievance against a payment order must be heard by a judge other than the one who issued it
Under Article 147(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, a party may file a grievance against a payment order whose value is within the final jurisdiction of the first-instance …
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…
Appeal judgments in substantive enforcement disputes, unlike those on pure enforcement steps, can be challenged in cassation
The Civil Procedure Code distinguishes temporary enforcement disputes, which seek only a stay or continuation of enforcement without touching the right and are decided by…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →