	(261537,25361,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261538,25361,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(261539,25361,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
	(261540,25361,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261541,25361,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261542,25361,'CurrentUserID','1'),
	(261543,25361,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261544,25362,'PostID','7933'),
	(261545,25362,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261546,25362,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(261547,25362,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261548,25362,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(261549,25362,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(261550,25362,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(261551,25362,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261552,25362,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261553,25362,'CurrentUserID','1'),
	(261554,25362,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261555,25363,'PostID','7933'),
	(261556,25363,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261557,25363,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(261558,25363,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261559,25363,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(261560,25363,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(261561,25363,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(261562,25363,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261563,25363,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261564,25363,'CurrentUserID','1'),
	(261565,25363,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261566,25364,'AttachmentID','8076'),
	(261567,25364,'FileName','shutterstock_1087401539.jpg'),
	(261568,25364,'FilePath','/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/08'),
	(261569,25364,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261570,25364,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261571,25364,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261572,25364,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261573,25365,'PostID','7929'),
	(261574,25365,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261575,25365,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261576,25365,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261577,25365,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261578,25365,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261579,25365,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261580,25365,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261581,25365,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261582,25365,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261583,25365,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261584,25366,'PostID','7929'),
	(261585,25366,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261586,25366,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261587,25366,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261588,25366,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261589,25366,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261590,25366,'MetaID','222742'),
	(261591,25366,'MetaKey','content'),
	(261592,25366,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"514\" height=\"343\" />It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261593,25366,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261594,25366,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261595,25366,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261596,25366,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"514\" height=\"343\" />It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261597,25366,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261598,25366,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261599,25366,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261600,25366,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261601,25367,'PostID','7929'),
	(261602,25367,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261603,25367,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261604,25367,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261605,25367,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261606,25367,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261607,25367,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261608,25367,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261609,25367,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261610,25367,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261611,25367,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261612,25368,'PostID','7929'),
	(261613,25368,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261614,25368,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261615,25368,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261616,25368,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261617,25368,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261618,25368,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261619,25368,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261620,25368,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261621,25368,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261622,25368,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261623,25369,'AttachmentID','8077'),
	(261624,25369,'FileName','shutterstock_732097636.jpg'),
	(261625,25369,'FilePath','/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/08'),
	(261626,25369,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261627,25369,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261628,25369,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261629,25369,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261630,25370,'PostID','7929'),
	(261631,25370,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261632,25370,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261633,25370,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261634,25370,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261635,25370,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261636,25370,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261637,25370,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261638,25370,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261639,25370,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261640,25370,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261641,25371,'PostID','7929'),
	(261642,25371,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261643,25371,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261644,25371,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261645,25371,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261646,25371,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261647,25371,'MetaID','222742'),
	(261648,25371,'MetaKey','content'),
	(261649,25371,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-8077\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_732097636.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"3008\" height=\"1379\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright size-large wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"427\" />A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261650,25371,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"514\" height=\"343\" />It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261651,25371,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261652,25371,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261653,25371,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"514\" height=\"343\" />It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-8077\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_732097636.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"3008\" height=\"1379\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is rare for arbitrators to be sued in the UAE although the prospect of such steps being taken has garnered much press interest in recent times. The new 2018 arbitration law (UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018) does not address the issue, and the old law (Articles 208 to 218 of UAE Civil Procedure Law No. 11 of 1992) merely stated that an arbitrator could be liable for damages if the arbitrator resigns without a good reason. However, a recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment (No. 484 of 2017) has considered the issue and provided helpful guidance. This article considers this important judgment and its implications.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A developer, Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC (the \"Developer\"), sold various units off-plan in a tower it was developing in Dubai Marina. Various purchasers assigned their rights under the sale and purchase agreements they had with the Developer to a real estate finance company, Amlak.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Amlak initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Developer, alleging that the units (now built) were not in conformity with the agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In July 2012 DIAC appointed the sole arbitrator (\"Arbitrator No.1\"). He issued a partial award in November 2013 determining jurisdictional issues. Arbitrator No.1 resigned in December 2013 due to issues regarding impartiality. Arbitrator No.2 was subsequently appointed as the sole arbitrator by DIAC. Arbitrator No 2 issued a final award against the Developer. The award ordered that the Developer pay Amlak AED 46.5m plus interest, as well as AED 466,788 in arbitration costs. Arbitrator No 2 issued a supplemental award to correct accounting calculation errors in the final award which reduced the amount payable to AED 42.7m.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The final award was ratified by the Dubai Courts and an amount of AED 42.7m was paid in full by the Developer to Amlak.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Claim Before the Courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Developer then filed a claim before the Dubai Court of First Instance alleging that the two arbitrators had committed material errors in their respective awards. It was claimed that:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The two arbitrators lacked capacity to decide the dispute.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.1 erred in his award on jurisdiction by holding that Al Sayyah &amp; Sons Investments LLC and Al Sayyah Investments were the same legal entity. Arbitrator No.2 made the same error by relying on and adopting the terms of the partial award in issuing the final award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Developer was not a party to the agreements containing the arbitration clause.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had denied the Developer’s right to submit its defence as Amlak should have been ordered to submit the original agreements.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 had altered the terms of the agreement in order to render the final award and had failed to address the issue of lack of jurisdiction.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to include the names of the unit owners and misrepresented the unit area data as set out in the architect’s report in his supplemental award.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Arbitrator No.2 failed to take into consideration the relevant Land Department documents delineating the gross area of the units when making the final award.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For the above reasons the Developer asserted that they were wrongfully ordered to pay Amlak the AED 42m and sought that both arbitrators be held jointly and severally liable to repay this money to the Developer.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance dismissed the Developer’s claim in January 2017. This was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in September 2017. The Developer appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Dubai Court of Cassation judgment</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 21 December 2017 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The Court of Cassation explained that in order for an arbitrator to be found liable in tort, the following elements had to be proved by the claimant:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There had been an act or omission by the arbitrator;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Harm was incurred by the claimant; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">There was a causal link between the act or omission and the harm caused.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>Significantly, the Court then went further and stated that the act or omission would need to be \"a serious mistake tainted by deceit, fraud, collusion with the opponent, or refusal to act without acceptable justification. An ordinary mistake or negligence, whether in judgment or procedure, is not sufficient to hold the arbitrator liable unless it is a serious mistake or fraud\".</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court held that it is for the trial court to examine the evidence and determine whether an arbitrator is liable. In this case the Court held that the errors which the Developer alleged were errors of judgment for which the two arbitrators could not be sued.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignright size-large wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/shutterstock_1087401539-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"427\" />A Step in the Right Direction</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court found that it was not enough for the claimant to demonstrate that an arbitrator made an error that had caused loss to the claimant. The error has to be a ‘serious mistake’ or one tainted by fraud or deceit or otherwise inexplicable. This suggests a high-threshold and one that should give comfort to arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This standard of civil liability is in tune with the threshold found in other laws. Both the DIFC and the ADGM have arbitration laws stating that an arbitrator will not be liable ‘unless they are shown to have caused damage by conscious and deliberate wrongdoing’ (Article 22 of the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008; Article 23 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Many arbitral rules contain terms stating that the parties agree not to sue the arbitrator. This includes the DIAC rules which state, at Article 40, that no member of a tribunal shall be liable in connection with the arbitration. It is not clear why this was not referred to by the Court in its judgment, but its absence leaves open the question of whether an arbitrator’s liability under the law can be further limited by the consent of the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This Court of Cassation judgment is definitely a positive step forward. It should make arbitrator’s feel more confident that whilst they are not immune from suit, they are protected from spurious claims brought by disgruntled parties.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<em>Al Tamimi uniquely possesses the capability to litigate before both of the financial free zone courts and conduct litigation before the UAE Federal Courts and the courts of each individual Emirate. <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/practice/arbitration/\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Arbitration team</a> regularly advises on international investment and commercial arbitration. For further information, please contact Dr. Hassan Arab (<a href=\"mailto:h.arab@tamimi.com\">h.arab@tamimi.com</a>) or Dalal Al Houti (<a href=\"mailto:D.Alhouti@tamimi.com\">D.Alhouti@tamimi.com</a>).</em>');

INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`)
VALUES
	(261654,25371,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261655,25371,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261656,25371,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261657,25371,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261658,25372,'PostID','7929'),
	(261659,25372,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261660,25372,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261661,25372,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261662,25372,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261663,25372,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261664,25372,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261665,25372,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261666,25372,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261667,25372,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261668,25372,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261669,25373,'PostID','7929'),
	(261670,25373,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261671,25373,'PostTitle','A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
	(261672,25373,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261673,25373,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
	(261674,25373,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
	(261675,25373,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
	(261676,25373,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261677,25373,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261678,25373,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261679,25373,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261776,25382,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
	(261777,25382,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261778,25382,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261779,25382,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
	(261780,25382,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261781,25382,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261782,25382,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261783,25382,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261784,25383,'PostID','7930'),
	(261785,25383,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261786,25383,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261787,25383,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261788,25383,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261789,25383,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261790,25383,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261791,25383,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261792,25383,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261793,25383,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261794,25383,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261795,25384,'PostID','7930'),
	(261796,25384,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261797,25384,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261798,25384,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261799,25384,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261800,25384,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261801,25384,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261802,25384,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261803,25384,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261804,25384,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261805,25384,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261806,25385,'PostID','7930'),
	(261807,25385,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261808,25385,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261809,25385,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261810,25385,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261811,25385,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261812,25385,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261813,25385,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261814,25385,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261815,25385,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261816,25385,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261817,25386,'PostID','7930'),
	(261818,25386,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261819,25386,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261820,25386,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261821,25386,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261822,25386,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261823,25386,'MetaID','222848'),
	(261824,25386,'MetaKey','content'),
	(261825,25386,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
	(261826,25386,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
	(261827,25386,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261828,25386,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261829,25386,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
	(261830,25386,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261831,25386,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261832,25386,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261833,25386,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261834,25387,'PostID','7930'),
	(261835,25387,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261836,25387,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261837,25387,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261838,25387,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261839,25387,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261840,25387,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261841,25387,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261842,25387,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261843,25387,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261844,25387,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261845,25388,'PostID','7930'),
	(261846,25388,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261847,25388,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261848,25388,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261849,25388,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261850,25388,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261851,25388,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261852,25388,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261853,25388,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261854,25388,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261855,25388,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261856,25389,'PostID','7932'),
	(261857,25389,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261858,25389,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261859,25389,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261860,25389,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261861,25389,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261862,25389,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261863,25389,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261864,25389,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261865,25389,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261866,25389,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261867,25390,'PostID','7932'),
	(261868,25390,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261869,25390,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261870,25390,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261871,25390,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261872,25390,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261873,25390,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261874,25390,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261875,25390,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261876,25390,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261877,25390,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261878,25391,'PostID','7932'),
	(261879,25391,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261880,25391,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261881,25391,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261882,25391,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261883,25391,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261884,25391,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261885,25391,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261886,25391,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261887,25391,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261888,25391,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261889,25392,'PostID','7932'),
	(261890,25392,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261891,25392,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261892,25392,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261893,25392,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261894,25392,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261895,25392,'MetaID','222896'),
	(261896,25392,'MetaKey','content'),
	(261897,25392,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).'),
	(261898,25392,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).'),
	(261899,25392,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261900,25392,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261901,25392,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).'),
	(261902,25392,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261903,25392,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261904,25392,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261905,25392,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261906,25393,'PostID','7932'),
	(261907,25393,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261908,25393,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261909,25393,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261910,25393,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261911,25393,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261912,25393,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261913,25393,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261914,25393,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261915,25393,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261916,25393,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261917,25394,'PostID','7932'),
	(261918,25394,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261919,25394,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261920,25394,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261921,25394,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261922,25394,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261923,25394,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261924,25394,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261925,25394,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261926,25394,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261927,25394,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261928,25395,'PostID','7932'),
	(261929,25395,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261930,25395,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261931,25395,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261932,25395,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261933,25395,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261934,25395,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261935,25395,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261936,25395,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261937,25395,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261938,25395,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261939,25396,'PostID','7932'),
	(261940,25396,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261941,25396,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261942,25396,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261943,25396,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261944,25396,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261945,25396,'MetaID','222896'),
	(261946,25396,'MetaKey','content'),
	(261947,25396,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\n<em>For further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261948,25396,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).'),
	(261949,25396,'MetaLink','content'),
	(261950,25396,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261951,25396,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"837\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\n<em>For further information please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).</em>'),
	(261952,25396,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261953,25396,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261954,25396,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261955,25396,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261956,25397,'PostID','7930'),
	(261957,25397,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261958,25397,'PostTitle','Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
	(261959,25397,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261960,25397,'PostDate','2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
	(261961,25397,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
	(261962,25397,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
	(261963,25397,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261964,25397,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261965,25397,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261966,25397,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261967,25398,'PostID','7932'),
	(261968,25398,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261969,25398,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261970,25398,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261971,25398,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261972,25398,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261973,25398,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261974,25398,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261975,25398,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261976,25398,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261977,25398,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261978,25399,'PostID','7932'),
	(261979,25399,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261980,25399,'PostTitle','Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
	(261981,25399,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261982,25399,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:28'),
	(261983,25399,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
	(261984,25399,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
	(261985,25399,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261986,25399,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261987,25399,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261988,25399,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(261989,25400,'PostID','7933'),
	(261990,25400,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(261991,25400,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(261992,25400,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(261993,25400,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(261994,25400,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(261995,25400,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(261996,25400,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(261997,25400,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(261998,25400,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(261999,25400,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262000,25401,'PostID','7933'),
	(262001,25401,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262002,25401,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262003,25401,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262004,25401,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262005,25401,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262006,25401,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262007,25401,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262008,25401,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262009,25401,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262010,25401,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262011,25402,'PostID','7933'),
	(262012,25402,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262013,25402,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262014,25402,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262015,25402,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262016,25402,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262017,25402,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262018,25402,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262019,25402,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262020,25402,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262021,25402,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262022,25403,'PostID','7933'),
	(262023,25403,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262024,25403,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262025,25403,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262026,25403,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262027,25403,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262028,25403,'MetaID','222950'),
	(262029,25403,'MetaKey','content'),
	(262030,25403,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262031,25403,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
	(262032,25403,'MetaLink','content'),
	(262033,25403,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262034,25403,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262035,25403,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262036,25403,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262037,25403,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262038,25403,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262039,25404,'PostID','7933'),
	(262040,25404,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262041,25404,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262042,25404,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262043,25404,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262044,25404,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262045,25404,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262046,25404,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262047,25404,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262048,25404,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262049,25404,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262050,25405,'PostID','7933'),
	(262051,25405,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262052,25405,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262053,25405,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262054,25405,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262055,25405,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262056,25405,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262057,25405,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262058,25405,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262059,25405,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262060,25405,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262061,25406,'PostID','7933'),
	(262062,25406,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262063,25406,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262064,25406,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262065,25406,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262066,25406,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262067,25406,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262068,25406,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262069,25406,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262070,25406,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262071,25406,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262072,25407,'PostID','7933'),
	(262073,25407,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262074,25407,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262075,25407,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262076,25407,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262077,25407,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262078,25407,'MetaID','222950'),
	(262079,25407,'MetaKey','content'),
	(262080,25407,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262081,25407,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262082,25407,'MetaLink','content'),
	(262083,25407,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262084,25407,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262085,25407,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262086,25407,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262087,25407,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262088,25407,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262089,25408,'PostID','7933'),
	(262090,25408,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262091,25408,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262092,25408,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262093,25408,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262094,25408,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262095,25408,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262096,25408,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262097,25408,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262098,25408,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262099,25408,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262100,25409,'PostID','7933'),
	(262101,25409,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262102,25409,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262103,25409,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262104,25409,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262105,25409,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262106,25409,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262107,25409,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262108,25409,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262109,25409,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262110,25409,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262111,25410,'PostID','7933'),
	(262112,25410,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262113,25410,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262114,25410,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262115,25410,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262116,25410,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262117,25410,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262118,25410,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262119,25410,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262120,25410,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262121,25410,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262122,25411,'PostID','7933'),
	(262123,25411,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262124,25411,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262125,25411,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262126,25411,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262127,25411,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262128,25411,'MetaID','222950'),
	(262129,25411,'MetaKey','content'),
	(262130,25411,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262131,25411,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>');

INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`)
VALUES
	(262132,25411,'MetaLink','content'),
	(262133,25411,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262134,25411,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262135,25411,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262136,25411,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262137,25411,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262138,25411,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262139,25412,'PostID','7933'),
	(262140,25412,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262141,25412,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262142,25412,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262143,25412,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262144,25412,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262145,25412,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262146,25412,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262147,25412,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262148,25412,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262149,25412,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262150,25413,'PostID','7933'),
	(262151,25413,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262152,25413,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262153,25413,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262154,25413,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262155,25413,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262156,25413,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262157,25413,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262158,25413,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262159,25413,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262160,25413,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262161,25414,'PostID','7933'),
	(262162,25414,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262163,25414,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262164,25414,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262165,25414,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262166,25414,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262167,25414,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262168,25414,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262169,25414,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262170,25414,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262171,25414,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262172,25415,'PostID','7933'),
	(262173,25415,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262174,25415,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262175,25415,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262176,25415,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262177,25415,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262178,25415,'MetaID','222950'),
	(262179,25415,'MetaKey','content'),
	(262180,25415,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262181,25415,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262182,25415,'MetaLink','content'),
	(262183,25415,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262184,25415,'ReportText','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 aligncenter\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></h4>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h4 dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h4>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
	(262185,25415,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262186,25415,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262187,25415,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262188,25415,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262189,25416,'PostID','7933'),
	(262190,25416,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262191,25416,'PostTitle','Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
	(262192,25416,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262193,25416,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
	(262194,25416,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
	(262195,25416,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
	(262196,25416,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262197,25416,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262198,25416,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262199,25416,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262200,25417,'PostID','7934'),
	(262201,25417,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262202,25417,'PostTitle','Commentary on the UAE’s New Arbitration Law'),
	(262203,25417,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262204,25417,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:43:58'),
	(262205,25417,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/commentary-on-the-uaes-new-arbitration-law/'),
	(262206,25417,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7934&amp;action=edit'),
	(262207,25417,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262208,25417,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262209,25417,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262210,25417,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262211,25418,'PostID','7934'),
	(262212,25418,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262213,25418,'PostTitle','Commentary on the UAE’s New Arbitration Law'),
	(262214,25418,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262215,25418,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:43:58'),
	(262216,25418,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/commentary-on-the-uaes-new-arbitration-law/'),
	(262217,25418,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7934&amp;action=edit'),
	(262218,25418,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262219,25418,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262220,25418,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262221,25418,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262222,25419,'PostID','7934'),
	(262223,25419,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262224,25419,'PostTitle','Commentary on the UAE’s New Arbitration Law'),
	(262225,25419,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262226,25419,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:43:58'),
	(262227,25419,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/commentary-on-the-uaes-new-arbitration-law/'),
	(262228,25419,'EditorLinkPost','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-admin/post.php?post=7934&amp;action=edit'),
	(262229,25419,'ClientIP','86.98.5.18'),
	(262230,25419,'UserAgent','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
	(262231,25419,'CurrentUserID','8'),
	(262232,25419,'CurrentUserRoles','a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
	(262233,25420,'PostID','7934'),
	(262234,25420,'PostTitle','Commentary on the UAE’s New Arbitration Law'),
	(262235,25420,'PostStatus','publish'),
	(262236,25420,'PostType','law_update_articles'),
	(262237,25420,'PostDate','2018-08-01 07:43:58'),
	(262238,25420,'PostUrl','http://localhost:8888/tamimi/law-update-articles/commentary-on-the-uaes-new-arbitration-law/'),
	(262239,25420,'MetaID','223002'),
	(262240,25420,'MetaKey','content'),
	(262241,25420,'MetaValueNew','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7990 size-full\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/shutterstock_555491044.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"3868\" height=\"1481\" /></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The long-awaited Federal arbitration law of the UAE – Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (\"New Arbitration Law\" or the \"Law\") – was published in the Federal Official Gazette no. 630 of 15 May 2018 and came into effect last June. This standalone piece of legislation repeals the previous outdated and non-comprehensive UAE Chapter on Arbitration contained in articles 203 to 218 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992 (\"CPC\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law was long overdue, as the sporadic articles of the CPC did not provide much needed detail and clarity on some of the major points arising out of, or in connection with, arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the provisions did not conform to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law of 1985 and amended in 2006 (\"UNCITRAL Model Law\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law provides for a more secure framework for the conduct of arbitral proceedings in the UAE. The six sections of the New Arbitration Law contain 61 articles, most of which can be traced in the UNCITRAL Model Law, and are expected to significantly revamp the UAE chapter on arbitration.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we intend to provide an overview of the key highlights of the New Arbitration Law with a focus on its practical effects.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Scope of Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We note the extensive scope of application of the New Arbitration Law, both in terms of substance and time. Firstly, pursuant to Article 2, the New Arbitration Law shall apply to (i) arbitrations seated in the UAE unless the parties agree on the application of a different arbitration law, provided that such a law does not contravene UAE public policy and morality; (ii) commercial arbitrations taking place outside of the UAE where the parties have agreed to submit the arbitration to the provisions of the New Arbitration Law; and (iii) arbitrations arising out of a legal dispute, whether contractual or non-contractual, governed by the laws of the UAE, unless an exception applies. Accordingly, the New Arbitration Law shall generally apply unless the parties have agreed to apply another arbitration law, provided that other law is not in conflict with the public policy and morality of the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, we welcome the application of the New Arbitration Law to both domestic and international arbitral proceedings. Contrary to the CPC, which did not contain any reference to international arbitration, Article 3 of the New Arbitration Law introduced the character of international arbitration, which adopts an extraterritorial approach. As such, and under certain circumstances, an arbitration is deemed international even if it is conducted within the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We also note the absence of an express exclusion regarding the application of the New Arbitration Law to arbitrations seated in either the Dubai International Financial Centre or the Abu Dhabi Global Market. However, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Federal Law No. 8 of 2004 Regarding the Financial Free Zones, we conclude that the New Arbitration Law will not govern arbitrations seated in these two free zones, which will continue to be governed by the relevant free zone’s arbitration laws and regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the timing of the introduction of the New Arbitration Law, it came into effect \"one month from the day following its publication in the Official Gazette\". It is therefore our view that the New Arbitration Law came into effect on 15 June 2018. It is interesting to note that contrary to recently enacted arbitration laws in the region, the New Arbitration Law will apply retrospectively. Specifically, Article 59 provides that the New Arbitration Law will apply to all ongoing arbitral proceedings at the time of its coming into effect, including arbitrations arising out of existing arbitration agreements. Such a retrospective application is without any prejudice to all proceedings having taken place prior to the entry into force of the New Arbitration Law.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Competent Court</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">One of the major procedural highlights of the New Arbitration Law is the designation of the Competent Court, which has been defined as the \"Federal or local Court of Appeal agreed upon by the parties or in whose jurisdiction the arbitration is conducted.\" We hope that going forward, and in line with other major global arbitration hubs, that a dedicated circuit will hear arbitration matters, with specialised and arbitration-focused members of the judiciary to further support and safeguard the arbitral process.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Arbitration Agreement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 7 confirms the writing requirement for the validity of arbitration agreements. Noteworthy additions to the New Arbitration Law include the expansive interpretation of the writing requirement. As such, an arbitration agreement can be concluded by an exchange of correspondence, including e-mails. Furthermore, the writing requirement is satisfied through the reference in a written contract to an arbitration agreement contained in another document, model contract or international agreement. In Article 5, the Law expressly provides for the notion of arbitration agreements incorporated by reference. Also, an oral agreement to arbitrate during court proceedings is deemed valid if it is recorded in a judgment or if the other party asserts the existence of an arbitration party and the other party does not raise any objection.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite the softening of the writing requirement, the New Arbitration Law reconfirms, through Article 4(1), the requirement for arbitration agreements to be signed by persons with authority to do so. Therefore, we draw the attention of parties wishing to enter into an arbitration agreement to the requisite capacity requirements provided for under the relevant laws of the UAE, which remain unaffected by the introduction of the New Arbitration Law. For a UAE incorporated limited liability company, it is recommended that the company’s constituting documents are reviewed prior to the execution of an arbitration agreement in order to verify that authority to enter into arbitration agreements, granted by default to the company’s manager, has not been explicitly withdrawn. Article 4(4) explicitly provides that the ex-post lack of capacity of a party entering into an arbitration agreement, which occurs for example as a result of the death of an individual or the expiry of the entity’s term (as prescribed in its constitutional documents) after it has entered into an arbitration agreement, shall not cause the termination of such an arbitration agreement. It is however interesting to note that the Law seemingly intended for such a provision to be non-mandatory as parties may still otherwise agree. Furthermore, Article 4(2) reiterates that there shall not be an agreement to arbitrate matters which are non-conciliatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the validity of arbitration agreements, Article 6, in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law, confirms the separability principle of arbitration agreements. When parties’ agreement to arbitrate is featured within the framework of their main contractual relationship, the New Arbitration Law affirms the independence of the arbitration agreement from the other terms of the main contract in which it is contained. Arbitration agreements are not affected by the nullity, rescission or termination of the main contract, save for grounds arising out of a defective capacity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finally, Article 8 provides that the court shall dismiss any action that falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement, provided that the existence of the arbitration agreement is brought to the court’s attention before making any substantive claims or defences on the merits, unless the court decides that the arbitration agreement is invalid or impossible to perform. The filing of such an action does not preclude the commencement or continuance of arbitral proceedings or the issuance of the arbitral award.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7992 size-full\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/shutterstock_756750676.jpg\" &nbsp;alt=\"\" width=\"4243\" height=\"1636\" />Set and Stringent Time Limits</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In an effort to promote efficiency and prevent unnecessary prejudicial delays, the legislative draftsman of the New Arbitration Law have aimed to fit the arbitral proceedings within a clear set of, often stringent, time limits.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For example, in the event of alleged non-compliance with the arbitration agreement or the Law, Article 25 provides that if a party does not object within the time limit agreed upon, or within seven days of becoming aware of the alleged non-compliance, that party is deemed to have waived its right to rely on this non-compliance subsequently. It is questionable whether the default seven-day period is reasonable from a practical perspective. However, such a waiver to challenge constitutes an important pro-arbitration provision, which shall have the effect of estopping a party from attempting to halt the conduct of the proceedings if it does not assert any objection in a prompt manner. With that said, we note that a party’s right to challenge an award, based on a defective arbitration agreement, or lack thereof, would still be preserved pursuant to Article 53. It is yet to be tested how the courts will interpret and eventually apply Articles 25 and 53.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, the New Arbitration Law has set a reasonable 15-day period. Specifically, pursuant to Article 11(2-3), the parties have a 15-day time limit to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator, from the date of receipt of a request to do so. Under Article 15(1-2), a 15-day time limit has been set for a party to challenge an arbitrator after becoming aware of the arbitrator appointment or after becoming aware of any circumstances justifying the challenge. Such a challenge shall be in a written application addressed to the challenged arbitrator, with a copy of the same addressed to the other members of the tribunal, if any, as well as the other parties. In the event that the arbitrator does not withdraw or the other party does not agree to the removal of the arbitrator, the party making the challenge may present it to the concerned body within 15-days after the lapse of the initial 15-day period.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We note the express acknowledgment of the compétence-compétence principle in Article 19(2) under which the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to rule on its own jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, a party still has the right to challenge a tribunal’s preliminary decision of jurisdiction before the courts within 15 days of the preliminary decision being notified. The Court then has then 30 days to render its decision. While the request is pending, the arbitral proceedings may continue at the request of a party. We note that this possibility to petition the court on the basis of a procedural order and not an award, is uncustomary in the UAE and may lead, at least in the beginning, to uncertainty.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Arbitrator Requirements</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law brings clarity on the requisite requirements for arbitrators. Article 10(1) specifies that an arbitrator must not be a minor, or be judicially declared as incapacitated, or one without civil rights for the reasons of bankruptcy (unless discharged), or conviction for a crime (even if she or he has been rehabilitated).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, Article 10(2) provides that an arbitrator cannot be a member of the Board of Trustees or of the administrative body of the arbitral institution administering the arbitration in which that person is asked to sit. We highlight the expansive application of this provision to arbitrations administered by both domestic arbitration centres, such as the Dubai International Arbitration Centre and the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, as well as international arbitration centres, such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The triggering event prompting the application of Article 10(2) is therefore the UAE seat of such arbitral proceedings. It is regrettable that the Law did not draw a distinction between party-appointed arbitrators, on one hand, and centre-appointed arbitrators, on the other, as we would be of the view that party-appointed arbitrators, even if members of the Board of Trustees or administrative body of an arbitral institution, should not be affected by this provision. Given the retrospective application of the New Arbitration Law to ongoing arbitrations, we note that the entry into force of the Law will most likely cause certain concerned arbitrators to resign.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We also note that the Ministry of Justice or the Chairman of the competent judicial authority are to compile a list of arbitrators to be appointed in the event of a failure to agree upon the appointment of an arbitrator. As the list has not yet been published, we remain hopeful that the selection process of the prospective arbitrators would follow the international best practices in terms of both procedural knowledge and industry-specific expertise.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finally, pursuant to Article 58, the Ministry of Economy is to issue a charter on the professional conduct of arbitrators in consultation with the arbitration institutions in the UAE. While the issuance of such a charter is likely to instil confidence within the parties to arbitration in the UAE, we are of the view that the effect of such a charter will remain for guidance purposes only. It is notable that the Law does not address the issues relating to the liability of arbitrators. In our view, it would have been desirable that for the Law to have included a provision confirming the civil immunity of arbitrators.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Arbitral Proceedings</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Commencement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">According to Article 27(1), arbitral proceedings are deemed to have commenced from the following day after which the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, unless the parties agree otherwise. With that said, in relation to the procedural requirement for a substantive claim to confirm and sustain precautionary attachments, Article 27(2) provides that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date of the notification of the request for arbitration. Even though the relationship between arbitral and court proceedings relating to arbitration is yet to be tested under the New Arbitration Law, the advancement of the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings for the purpose of precautionary attachments is a positive provision.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Language of the Arbitration</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the New Arbitration Law, the default language of the arbitral proceedings, absent an agreement between the parties, will be Arabic. We therefore draw the attention of foreign parties in particular to the need to agree on a different language for the arbitration should they wish to avoid arbitral proceedings in Arabic, either explicitly, through for example their arbitration agreement, or implicitly, by agreeing to the application of institutional rules.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Acknowledgment of Modern Means of Communication</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The emphasis on the use and role of technology in the New Arbitration Law can be attributed to the desire for more efficient proceedings. There are indeed several references to the use of \"modern means of communication\" in the Law. For example, written correspondence can now be deemed to have been delivered if sent, amongst other means, by email. Article 28(2) provides that arbitral hearings and deliberations can be conducted by modern means of communication and electronic technology. In addition, Article 33(3) provides that hearing may be held through modern means of communication without the physical presence of the parties at the hearing. Pursuant to Article 35, the arbitral tribunal may question witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication without their physical presence at the hearing. The emphasis on the use of technology will undoubtedly modernise arbitral proceedings in the UAE and help instil global confidence in such proceedings.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Confidentiality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Contrary to common belief, arbitral proceedings are not confidential by default. The New Arbitration Law addresses the issue of confidentiality by stating, under Article 33(1), that hearings shall be confidential unless parties have otherwise agreed. The confidentiality of arbitral awards is implicitly recognised pursuant to Article 44. However, the Law does not explicitly provide for the confidentiality of documents, pleadings, evidence or submissions produced by the parties and the tribunal during the proceedings. We recommend that parties address the confidentiality of their arbitral proceedings either through an explicit agreement, or implicitly, through an agreement to apply institutional rules providing for the hoped for confidentiality obligations.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conduct</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is clear that the New Arbitration Law attempts to instil discipline and efficiency in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. As noted above, arbitral hearings can be held at any place, and the Law allows arbitral hearings and deliberations to be conducted by modern means of communication and electronic technology. Article 30(1-2) provides, absent an agreement between the parties, for a 14-day period from the date of the composition of the arbitral tribunal for the claimant to communicate the statement of claim in writing to the respondent and to the arbitrators. After receiving the statement of claim, the respondent has a further 14-day period to communicate its statement of defence. The practical difficulties associated with these relatively contracted time limits will most likely prompt parties to agree on different deadlines.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is worth noting that the New Arbitration Law attempts to put an end to disruptive guerrilla tactics through repetitive challenges of an arbitrator by providing under Article 15(3) that the challenge of an arbitrator does not suspend the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to Article 43 of the New Arbitration Law, the arbitral tribunal can decide to continue the arbitral proceedings (i) where there are issues that fall outside the scope of its jurisdiction; (ii) if a document submitted to it is challenged for forgery; or (iii) if criminal proceedings in respect of that document or for any other criminal act which has been instituted. This is a significant improvement as previously, according to the CPC, the tribunal was required to suspend its proceedings under such circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law provides much needed clarity on the issue of the representation of the parties by non-UAE lawyers. Specifically, Article 33(5) provides that parties may seek the assistance of representatives for their representation in the arbitral proceedings and these representatives may or may not be lawyers. The non-restriction on the appearance of foreign counsel in UAE-seated arbitrations is welcome after the issuance of the 2017 Executive Regulations to the Federal Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Legal Professional, which was interpreted by some to restrict the appearance of non –UAE counsel in arbitral proceedings seated in the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law also provides wide latitude to the parties and the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the conduct of the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Interim and Conservatory Measures</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Interim and conservatory measures constitute crucial tools in arbitral proceedings. The CPC did not grant powers to the tribunal to order such measures, which were within the exclusive powers of the courts. In the event that parties agree to grant such powers to the tribunal, either explicitly or implicitly through the application of institutional rules, the enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim and conservatory measures was an impossible task in the UAE before the enactment of the New Arbitration Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">One of the much anticipated provisions of the New Arbitration Law is Article 21. Through this article, and unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the New Arbitration Law explicitly recognises the arbitral tribunal’s power to award interim or conservatory measures, either on the request of a party or of its own motion, including ordering a party to provide adequate security to cover the costs of such measures. Pursuant to Article 21(4), a party for whom an interim measure has been ordered in its favour may, with written permission from the tribunal, request the competent court to enforce the order of the tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the request.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Notwithstanding the arbitral tribunal’s newly attributed powers to order such interim and conservatory measures, the court also remains competent to grant interim and conservatory measures based on an application by the tribunal or one of the parties in relation to forthcoming or ongoing arbitral proceedings. As per Article 18(3), the arbitral proceedings shall continue notwithstanding any application for interim or conservatory measures relating to an ongoing arbitration and such an application to the court shall not constitute a waiver to the arbitration agreement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">While the receptivity and approach of the courts in relation to these provisions are yet to be tested, we highly welcome these efforts to safeguard more efficient and equitable arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Award</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the issuance of the award, Article 42(1) provides that, unless agreed otherwise, an award must be issued within 6 months from the date of the first hearing of the arbitration. Contrary to the previous CPC regime, such a date can now be extended for an additional 6 months, unless the parties agree to a longer extension, either explicitly or implicitly through the application of institutional rules. Article 42(2) provides that absent such an agreement, further extension of time can only be made by the courts upon petition by the parties or the tribunal itself. It is important to bear in mind in this regard that the failure to meet this time limit is a ground for challenging an award pursuant to Article 53(1)(g) of the New Arbitration Law as discussed further below.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The time limits set forth in Article 42 lack any mechanism for arbitral institutions to grant an extension of time, though it may be argued that parties have agreed to such an extension by virtue of having agreed to the application of particular institutional rules. Under the previous regime, the CPC allowed the parties to agree to extensions of time whether expressly or by implication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In our view, Article 41(6) is a very positive introduction, which provides that awards can be signed outside the seat of arbitration and can also be signed electronically. The issuance of the final award shall be deemed to mark the end of the arbitral proceedings. According to Article 44, parties are to be notified of the award within 15 days from the date of issue of the award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law explicitly recognises that an arbitral tribunal may interpret an award by issuing an explanatory award pursuant to Article 49. A party may request the tribunal to interpret any obscurity or ambiguity in its award within 30 days of receipt of the award, unless the parties have agreed to different procedures or time limits. The tribunal shall consider and issue its explanatory award within 30 days after the receipt of the request, which may extended by a further 15 days. Such an explanatory award is deemed to supplement the final arbitral award.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Arbitral Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law clarifies the process for enforcing UAE arbitral awards with a fast-tracked and overhauled procedure. The New Arbitration Law provides that arbitral awards are binding on the parties, res judicata applies and that such awards shall be enforceable in the same manner as a judicial ruling provided ratification is obtained. If the enforcement of the award is sought in the UAE, a ratification of such an award by the court is required in order to proceed with the enforcement of such an award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A major development in the New Arbitration Law lies in the fact that enforcement proceedings shall now commence directly before the UAE federal or local Court of Appeal, not before the Court of First Instance as before. The form of the enforcement procedure has also been simplified. Instead of filing a case before the court, the award-creditor can seek the ratification and enforcement of an award through the filing of an application with the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal. Pursuant to Article 55(2), the relevant authority will now have 60 days from the date of the application to order the ratification and enforcement of the award unless it finds grounds for annulment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 provides for the possibility of filing a grievance against an order of the Court of Appeal ratifying an award and declaring it enforceable or order of the Court of Appeal denying enforcement. Such a grievance must be filed with the Court of Appeal within 30 days of the Court of Appeal’s notification of the order. We note that it would have been more appropriate for such a grievance to be filed before the Court of Cassation, as the higher appellate court, instead of the Court of Appeal.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to foreign arbitral awards, we note that the Law lacks explicit provisions relating to the enforcement of such awards. It is our view that the CPC provisions, specifically Articles 235 to 238, remain applicable absent a convention or treaty entered into by the UAE dealing with the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In the event of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE sought on the basis of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (\"New York Convention\"), it is yet to be tested whether the new expedited enforcement provisions of the Law would apply to such enforcements given that Article III of the New York Convention provides that: \"(…) There shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which this Convention applies than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.\"</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the absence of any explicit provisions to the contrary within the Law, we are of the view that the new provisions of the Law should apply to enforcements of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Award Challenge</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The grounds to challenge and set aside an award are limited and consistent with the spirit of Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 53(1) of the New Arbitration Law provides for limited grounds for annulment, which include the lack of capacity of a party entering into the arbitration agreement, lack of authorisation to act on the matter or lack of notice. Unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law, the New Arbitration Law also provides that the issuance of a final award which does not apply the substantive law chosen by the parties or the arbitral tribunal’s failure to issue the award within the specified time-frame shall also constitute grounds for challenge. In addition, Article 53(2) provides that the court has the right to set aside the award on its own initiative, if the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable or if the award contravenes the public policy and morality of the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In an effort to preserve the arbitral proceedings, several articles purport to safeguard the sanctity of the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For example, pursuant to Article 50(1-2), a party may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any typographical or clerical errors in the award within 30 days of receipt of the award, unless the parties have agreed to different procedures or time limits. Such correction is to be made within 30 days after the tribunal issues the award or after receiving the request for correction by one of the parties, as the case may be. Such period may be extended by a further 15 days. The arbitral tribunal shall notify the parties after corrections are made within 15 days from the date of issue of correction. Also, Article 51(1-2) provides that a party may request the tribunal to issue an additional award if the party believes that the final award did not deal with some of the requests made. Such a request must be made within 30 days of receipt of the award. If such a request is justified, then the arbitral tribunal shall issue the additional award within 60 days after the receipt of the request and may extend by a further 30 days. In addition, pursuant to Article 54(6), the court may suspend the setting aside proceedings for a period of up to 60 days in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to take any action or make any amendment to the form of the award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whereas under the previous CPC regime, there was no specific deadline for the purpose of filing a set aside action, the New Arbitration Law, pursuant to Article 54(2) provides for a 30-day time limit from the date of receiving notice of the award for a party to commence annulment proceedings. This is a significant change to the previous regime, and we believe that this will contribute to the legal security of final awards. However, Article 54(1) provides that the decision to set aside is final and can only be appealed to the Court of Cassation. We note that there is no set time limit for the Court of Cassation to render its decision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In line with the general spirit of the New Arbitration Law for more efficient proceedings, an action to set aside an arbitral award does not stay its enforcement. Nevertheless, the court may order a stay of enforcement if a party requests for a stay of enforcement. Such stay of enforcement is to be decided within 15 days after the date of the first scheduled hearing.</p>\r\n&nbsp;<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration undoubtedly constitutes a landmark development for arbitration in the UAE by providing a standalone arbitration law aligned with international best practices and standards. We consider that the overall preservation and respect of party autonomy and the focus on more streamlined and efficient proceedings will build the UAE’s reputation as a preferred seat for international arbitration in the region. We remain hopeful in the courts’ significant role in appropriately applying and preserving the spirit of the Law. The Executive Regulations, which are in the pipeline, will also undoubtedly clarify some of the issues raised in hope of a more rationalised and synchronised proceedings among the various players in UAE seated arbitrations.</p>\r\n<em>For further information, please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/essam-al-tamimi/\">Essam Al Tamimi</a> (e.tamimi@tamimi.com) or <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/sara-aranjo/\">Sara Koleilat-Aranjo</a> (s.aranjo@tamimi.com).</em>'),
	(262242,25420,'MetaValueOld','<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7990 size-full\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/shutterstock_555491044.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"3868\" height=\"1481\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The long-awaited Federal arbitration law of the UAE – Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (\"New Arbitration Law\" or the \"Law\") – was published in the Federal Official Gazette no. 630 of 15 May 2018 and came into effect last June. This standalone piece of legislation repeals the previous outdated and non-comprehensive UAE Chapter on Arbitration contained in articles 203 to 218 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992 (\"CPC\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law was long overdue, as the sporadic articles of the CPC did not provide much needed detail and clarity on some of the major points arising out of, or in connection with, arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the provisions did not conform to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law of 1985 and amended in 2006 (\"UNCITRAL Model Law\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law provides for a more secure framework for the conduct of arbitral proceedings in the UAE. The six sections of the New Arbitration Law contain 61 articles, most of which can be traced in the UNCITRAL Model Law, and are expected to significantly revamp the UAE chapter on arbitration.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In this article, we intend to provide an overview of the key highlights of the New Arbitration Law with a focus on its practical effects.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Scope of Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We note the extensive scope of application of the New Arbitration Law, both in terms of substance and time. Firstly, pursuant to Article 2, the New Arbitration Law shall apply to (i) arbitrations seated in the UAE unless the parties agree on the application of a different arbitration law, provided that such a law does not contravene UAE public policy and morality; (ii) commercial arbitrations taking place outside of the UAE where the parties have agreed to submit the arbitration to the provisions of the New Arbitration Law; and (iii) arbitrations arising out of a legal dispute, whether contractual or non-contractual, governed by the laws of the UAE, unless an exception applies. Accordingly, the New Arbitration Law shall generally apply unless the parties have agreed to apply another arbitration law, provided that other law is not in conflict with the public policy and morality of the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, we welcome the application of the New Arbitration Law to both domestic and international arbitral proceedings. Contrary to the CPC, which did not contain any reference to international arbitration, Article 3 of the New Arbitration Law introduced the character of international arbitration, which adopts an extraterritorial approach. As such, and under certain circumstances, an arbitration is deemed international even if it is conducted within the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We also note the absence of an express exclusion regarding the application of the New Arbitration Law to arbitrations seated in either the Dubai International Financial Centre or the Abu Dhabi Global Market. However, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Federal Law No. 8 of 2004 Regarding the Financial Free Zones, we conclude that the New Arbitration Law will not govern arbitrations seated in these two free zones, which will continue to be governed by the relevant free zone’s arbitration laws and regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the timing of the introduction of the New Arbitration Law, it came into effect \"one month from the day following its publication in the Official Gazette\". It is therefore our view that the New Arbitration Law came into effect on 15 June 2018. It is interesting to note that contrary to recently enacted arbitration laws in the region, the New Arbitration Law will apply retrospectively. Specifically, Article 59 provides that the New Arbitration Law will apply to all ongoing arbitral proceedings at the time of its coming into effect, including arbitrations arising out of existing arbitration agreements. Such a retrospective application is without any prejudice to all proceedings having taken place prior to the entry into force of the New Arbitration Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Competent Court</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">One of the major procedural highlights of the New Arbitration Law is the designation of the Competent Court, which has been defined as the \"Federal or local Court of Appeal agreed upon by the parties or in whose jurisdiction the arbitration is conducted.\" We hope that going forward, and in line with other major global arbitration hubs, that a dedicated circuit will hear arbitration matters, with specialised and arbitration-focused members of the judiciary to further support and safeguard the arbitral process.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Arbitration Agreement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 7 confirms the writing requirement for the validity of arbitration agreements. Noteworthy additions to the New Arbitration Law include the expansive interpretation of the writing requirement. As such, an arbitration agreement can be concluded by an exchange of correspondence, including e-mails. Furthermore, the writing requirement is satisfied through the reference in a written contract to an arbitration agreement contained in another document, model contract or international agreement. In Article 5, the Law expressly provides for the notion of arbitration agreements incorporated by reference. Also, an oral agreement to arbitrate during court proceedings is deemed valid if it is recorded in a judgment or if the other party asserts the existence of an arbitration party and the other party does not raise any objection.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Despite the softening of the writing requirement, the New Arbitration Law reconfirms, through Article 4(1), the requirement for arbitration agreements to be signed by persons with authority to do so. Therefore, we draw the attention of parties wishing to enter into an arbitration agreement to the requisite capacity requirements provided for under the relevant laws of the UAE, which remain unaffected by the introduction of the New Arbitration Law. For a UAE incorporated limited liability company, it is recommended that the company’s constituting documents are reviewed prior to the execution of an arbitration agreement in order to verify that authority to enter into arbitration agreements, granted by default to the company’s manager, has not been explicitly withdrawn. Article 4(4) explicitly provides that the ex-post lack of capacity of a party entering into an arbitration agreement, which occurs for example as a result of the death of an individual or the expiry of the entity’s term (as prescribed in its constitutional documents) after it has entered into an arbitration agreement, shall not cause the termination of such an arbitration agreement. It is however interesting to note that the Law seemingly intended for such a provision to be non-mandatory as parties may still otherwise agree. Furthermore, Article 4(2) reiterates that there shall not be an agreement to arbitrate matters which are non-conciliatory.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the validity of arbitration agreements, Article 6, in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law, confirms the separability principle of arbitration agreements. When parties’ agreement to arbitrate is featured within the framework of their main contractual relationship, the New Arbitration Law affirms the independence of the arbitration agreement from the other terms of the main contract in which it is contained. Arbitration agreements are not affected by the nullity, rescission or termination of the main contract, save for grounds arising out of a defective capacity.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finally, Article 8 provides that the court shall dismiss any action that falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement, provided that the existence of the arbitration agreement is brought to the court’s attention before making any substantive claims or defences on the merits, unless the court decides that the arbitration agreement is invalid or impossible to perform. The filing of such an action does not preclude the commencement or continuance of arbitral proceedings or the issuance of the arbitral award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7992 size-full\" src=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/shutterstock_756750676.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"4243\" height=\"1636\" />Set and Stringent Time Limits</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In an effort to promote efficiency and prevent unnecessary prejudicial delays, the legislative draftsman of the New Arbitration Law have aimed to fit the arbitral proceedings within a clear set of, often stringent, time limits.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For example, in the event of alleged non-compliance with the arbitration agreement or the Law, Article 25 provides that if a party does not object within the time limit agreed upon, or within seven days of becoming aware of the alleged non-compliance, that party is deemed to have waived its right to rely on this non-compliance subsequently. It is questionable whether the default seven-day period is reasonable from a practical perspective. However, such a waiver to challenge constitutes an important pro-arbitration provision, which shall have the effect of estopping a party from attempting to halt the conduct of the proceedings if it does not assert any objection in a prompt manner. With that said, we note that a party’s right to challenge an award, based on a defective arbitration agreement, or lack thereof, would still be preserved pursuant to Article 53. It is yet to be tested how the courts will interpret and eventually apply Articles 25 and 53.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, the New Arbitration Law has set a reasonable 15-day period. Specifically, pursuant to Article 11(2-3), the parties have a 15-day time limit to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator, from the date of receipt of a request to do so. Under Article 15(1-2), a 15-day time limit has been set for a party to challenge an arbitrator after becoming aware of the arbitrator appointment or after becoming aware of any circumstances justifying the challenge. Such a challenge shall be in a written application addressed to the challenged arbitrator, with a copy of the same addressed to the other members of the tribunal, if any, as well as the other parties. In the event that the arbitrator does not withdraw or the other party does not agree to the removal of the arbitrator, the party making the challenge may present it to the concerned body within 15-days after the lapse of the initial 15-day period.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We note the express acknowledgment of the compétence-compétence principle in Article 19(2) under which the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to rule on its own jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, a party still has the right to challenge a tribunal’s preliminary decision of jurisdiction before the courts within 15 days of the preliminary decision being notified. The Court then has then 30 days to render its decision. While the request is pending, the arbitral proceedings may continue at the request of a party. We note that this possibility to petition the court on the basis of a procedural order and not an award, is uncustomary in the UAE and may lead, at least in the beginning, to uncertainty.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Arbitrator Requirements</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law brings clarity on the requisite requirements for arbitrators. Article 10(1) specifies that an arbitrator must not be a minor, or be judicially declared as incapacitated, or one without civil rights for the reasons of bankruptcy (unless discharged), or conviction for a crime (even if she or he has been rehabilitated).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Furthermore, Article 10(2) provides that an arbitrator cannot be a member of the Board of Trustees or of the administrative body of the arbitral institution administering the arbitration in which that person is asked to sit. We highlight the expansive application of this provision to arbitrations administered by both domestic arbitration centres, such as the Dubai International Arbitration Centre and the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, as well as international arbitration centres, such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The triggering event prompting the application of Article 10(2) is therefore the UAE seat of such arbitral proceedings. It is regrettable that the Law did not draw a distinction between party-appointed arbitrators, on one hand, and centre-appointed arbitrators, on the other, as we would be of the view that party-appointed arbitrators, even if members of the Board of Trustees or administrative body of an arbitral institution, should not be affected by this provision. Given the retrospective application of the New Arbitration Law to ongoing arbitrations, we note that the entry into force of the Law will most likely cause certain concerned arbitrators to resign.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We also note that the Ministry of Justice or the Chairman of the competent judicial authority are to compile a list of arbitrators to be appointed in the event of a failure to agree upon the appointment of an arbitrator. As the list has not yet been published, we remain hopeful that the selection process of the prospective arbitrators would follow the international best practices in terms of both procedural knowledge and industry-specific expertise.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Finally, pursuant to Article 58, the Ministry of Economy is to issue a charter on the professional conduct of arbitrators in consultation with the arbitration institutions in the UAE. While the issuance of such a charter is likely to instil confidence within the parties to arbitration in the UAE, we are of the view that the effect of such a charter will remain for guidance purposes only. It is notable that the Law does not address the issues relating to the liability of arbitrators. In our view, it would have been desirable that for the Law to have included a provision confirming the civil immunity of arbitrators.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Arbitral Proceedings</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Commencement</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">According to Article 27(1), arbitral proceedings are deemed to have commenced from the following day after which the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, unless the parties agree otherwise. With that said, in relation to the procedural requirement for a substantive claim to confirm and sustain precautionary attachments, Article 27(2) provides that the arbitral proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date of the notification of the request for arbitration. Even though the relationship between arbitral and court proceedings relating to arbitration is yet to be tested under the New Arbitration Law, the advancement of the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings for the purpose of precautionary attachments is a positive provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Language of the Arbitration</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the New Arbitration Law, the default language of the arbitral proceedings, absent an agreement between the parties, will be Arabic. We therefore draw the attention of foreign parties in particular to the need to agree on a different language for the arbitration should they wish to avoid arbitral proceedings in Arabic, either explicitly, through for example their arbitration agreement, or implicitly, by agreeing to the application of institutional rules.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Acknowledgment of Modern Means of Communication</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The emphasis on the use and role of technology in the New Arbitration Law can be attributed to the desire for more efficient proceedings. There are indeed several references to the use of \"modern means of communication\" in the Law. For example, written correspondence can now be deemed to have been delivered if sent, amongst other means, by email. Article 28(2) provides that arbitral hearings and deliberations can be conducted by modern means of communication and electronic technology. In addition, Article 33(3) provides that hearing may be held through modern means of communication without the physical presence of the parties at the hearing. Pursuant to Article 35, the arbitral tribunal may question witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication without their physical presence at the hearing. The emphasis on the use of technology will undoubtedly modernise arbitral proceedings in the UAE and help instil global confidence in such proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Confidentiality</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Contrary to common belief, arbitral proceedings are not confidential by default. The New Arbitration Law addresses the issue of confidentiality by stating, under Article 33(1), that hearings shall be confidential unless parties have otherwise agreed. The confidentiality of arbitral awards is implicitly recognised pursuant to Article 44. However, the Law does not explicitly provide for the confidentiality of documents, pleadings, evidence or submissions produced by the parties and the tribunal during the proceedings. We recommend that parties address the confidentiality of their arbitral proceedings either through an explicit agreement, or implicitly, through an agreement to apply institutional rules providing for the hoped for confidentiality obligations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conduct</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is clear that the New Arbitration Law attempts to instil discipline and efficiency in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. As noted above, arbitral hearings can be held at any place, and the Law allows arbitral hearings and deliberations to be conducted by modern means of communication and electronic technology. Article 30(1-2) provides, absent an agreement between the parties, for a 14-day period from the date of the composition of the arbitral tribunal for the claimant to communicate the statement of claim in writing to the respondent and to the arbitrators. After receiving the statement of claim, the respondent has a further 14-day period to communicate its statement of defence. The practical difficulties associated with these relatively contracted time limits will most likely prompt parties to agree on different deadlines.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">It is worth noting that the New Arbitration Law attempts to put an end to disruptive guerrilla tactics through repetitive challenges of an arbitrator by providing under Article 15(3) that the challenge of an arbitrator does not suspend the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to Article 43 of the New Arbitration Law, the arbitral tribunal can decide to continue the arbitral proceedings (i) where there are issues that fall outside the scope of its jurisdiction; (ii) if a document submitted to it is challenged for forgery; or (iii) if criminal proceedings in respect of that document or for any other criminal act which has been instituted. This is a significant improvement as previously, according to the CPC, the tribunal was required to suspend its proceedings under such circumstances.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law provides much needed clarity on the issue of the representation of the parties by non-UAE lawyers. Specifically, Article 33(5) provides that parties may seek the assistance of representatives for their representation in the arbitral proceedings and these representatives may or may not be lawyers. The non-restriction on the appearance of foreign counsel in UAE-seated arbitrations is welcome after the issuance of the 2017 Executive Regulations to the Federal Law No. 23 of 1991 on the Legal Professional, which was interpreted by some to restrict the appearance of non –UAE counsel in arbitral proceedings seated in the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law also provides wide latitude to the parties and the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the conduct of the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Interim and Conservatory Measures</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Interim and conservatory measures constitute crucial tools in arbitral proceedings. The CPC did not grant powers to the tribunal to order such measures, which were within the exclusive powers of the courts. In the event that parties agree to grant such powers to the tribunal, either explicitly or implicitly through the application of institutional rules, the enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim and conservatory measures was an impossible task in the UAE before the enactment of the New Arbitration Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">One of the much anticipated provisions of the New Arbitration Law is Article 21. Through this article, and unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the New Arbitration Law explicitly recognises the arbitral tribunal’s power to award interim or conservatory measures, either on the request of a party or of its own motion, including ordering a party to provide adequate security to cover the costs of such measures. Pursuant to Article 21(4), a party for whom an interim measure has been ordered in its favour may, with written permission from the tribunal, request the competent court to enforce the order of the tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the request.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Notwithstanding the arbitral tribunal’s newly attributed powers to order such interim and conservatory measures, the court also remains competent to grant interim and conservatory measures based on an application by the tribunal or one of the parties in relation to forthcoming or ongoing arbitral proceedings. As per Article 18(3), the arbitral proceedings shall continue notwithstanding any application for interim or conservatory measures relating to an ongoing arbitration and such an application to the court shall not constitute a waiver to the arbitration agreement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">While the receptivity and approach of the courts in relation to these provisions are yet to be tested, we highly welcome these efforts to safeguard more efficient and equitable arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Award</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to the issuance of the award, Article 42(1) provides that, unless agreed otherwise, an award must be issued within 6 months from the date of the first hearing of the arbitration. Contrary to the previous CPC regime, such a date can now be extended for an additional 6 months, unless the parties agree to a longer extension, either explicitly or implicitly through the application of institutional rules. Article 42(2) provides that absent such an agreement, further extension of time can only be made by the courts upon petition by the parties or the tribunal itself. It is important to bear in mind in this regard that the failure to meet this time limit is a ground for challenging an award pursuant to Article 53(1)(g) of the New Arbitration Law as discussed further below.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The time limits set forth in Article 42 lack any mechanism for arbitral institutions to grant an extension of time, though it may be argued that parties have agreed to such an extension by virtue of having agreed to the application of particular institutional rules. Under the previous regime, the CPC allowed the parties to agree to extensions of time whether expressly or by implication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In our view, Article 41(6) is a very positive introduction, which provides that awards can be signed outside the seat of arbitration and can also be signed electronically. The issuance of the final award shall be deemed to mark the end of the arbitral proceedings. According to Article 44, parties are to be notified of the award within 15 days from the date of issue of the award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Law explicitly recognises that an arbitral tribunal may interpret an award by issuing an explanatory award pursuant to Article 49. A party may request the tribunal to interpret any obscurity or ambiguity in its award within 30 days of receipt of the award, unless the parties have agreed to different procedures or time limits. The tribunal shall consider and issue its explanatory award within 30 days after the receipt of the request, which may extended by a further 15 days. Such an explanatory award is deemed to supplement the final arbitral award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Arbitral Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Arbitration Law clarifies the process for enforcing UAE arbitral awards with a fast-tracked and overhauled procedure. The New Arbitration Law provides that arbitral awards are binding on the parties, res judicata applies and that such awards shall be enforceable in the same manner as a judicial ruling provided ratification is obtained. If the enforcement of the award is sought in the UAE, a ratification of such an award by the court is required in order to proceed with the enforcement of such an award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A major development in the New Arbitration Law lies in the fact that enforcement proceedings shall now commence directly before the UAE federal or local Court of Appeal, not before the Court of First Instance as before. The form of the enforcement procedure has also been simplified. Instead of filing a case before the court, the award-creditor can seek the ratification and enforcement of an award through the filing of an application with the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal. Pursuant to Article 55(2), the relevant authority will now have 60 days from the date of the application to order the ratification and enforcement of the award unless it finds grounds for annulment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 provides for the possibility of filing a grievance against an order of the Court of Appeal ratifying an award and declaring it enforceable or order of the Court of Appeal denying enforcement. Such a grievance must be filed with the Court of Appeal within 30 days of the Court of Appeal’s notification of the order. We note that it would have been more appropriate for such a grievance to be filed before the Court of Cassation, as the higher appellate court, instead of the Court of Appeal.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In relation to foreign arbitral awards, we note that the Law lacks explicit provisions relating to the enforcement of such awards. It is our view that the CPC provisions, specifically Articles 235 to 238, remain applicable absent a convention or treaty entered into by the UAE dealing with the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In the event of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE sought on the basis of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (\"New York Convention\"), it is yet to be tested whether the new expedited enforcement provisions of the Law would apply to such enforcements given that Article III of the New York Convention provides that: \"(…) There shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which this Convention applies than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.\"</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Given the absence of any explicit provisions to the contrary within the Law, we are of the view that the new provisions of the Law should apply to enforcements of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Award Challenge</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The grounds to challenge and set aside an award are limited and consistent with the spirit of Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Article 53(1) of the New Arbitration Law provides for limited grounds for annulment, which include the lack of capacity of a party entering into the arbitration agreement, lack of authorisation to act on the matter or lack of notice. Unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law, the New Arbitration Law also provides that the issuance of a final award which does not apply the substantive law chosen by the parties or the arbitral tribunal’s failure to issue the award within the specified time-frame shall also constitute grounds for challenge. In addition, Article 53(2) provides that the court has the right to set aside the award on its own initiative, if the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable or if the award contravenes the public policy and morality of the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In an effort to preserve the arbitral proceedings, several articles purport to safeguard the sanctity of the arbitral proceedings.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For example, pursuant to Article 50(1-2), a party may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any typographical or clerical errors in the award within 30 days of receipt of the award, unless the parties have agreed to different procedures or time limits. Such correction is to be made within 30 days after the tribunal issues the award or after receiving the request for correction by one of the parties, as the case may be. Such period may be extended by a further 15 days. The arbitral tribunal shall notify the parties after corrections are made within 15 days from the date of issue of correction. Also, Article 51(1-2) provides that a party may request the tribunal to issue an additional award if the party believes that the final award did not deal with some of the requests made. Such a request must be made within 30 days of receipt of the award. If such a request is justified, then the arbitral tribunal shall issue the additional award within 60 days after the receipt of the request and may extend by a further 30 days. In addition, pursuant to Article 54(6), the court may suspend the setting aside proceedings for a period of up to 60 days in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to take any action or make any amendment to the form of the award.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Whereas under the previous CPC regime, there was no specific deadline for the purpose of filing a set aside action, the New Arbitration Law, pursuant to Article 54(2) provides for a 30-day time limit from the date of receiving notice of the award for a party to commence annulment proceedings. This is a significant change to the previous regime, and we believe that this will contribute to the legal security of final awards. However, Article 54(1) provides that the decision to set aside is final and can only be appealed to the Court of Cassation. We note that there is no set time limit for the Court of Cassation to render its decision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In line with the general spirit of the New Arbitration Law for more efficient proceedings, an action to set aside an arbitral award does not stay its enforcement. Nevertheless, the court may order a stay of enforcement if a party requests for a stay of enforcement. Such stay of enforcement is to be decided within 15 days after the date of the first scheduled hearing.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration undoubtedly constitutes a landmark development for arbitration in the UAE by providing a standalone arbitration law aligned with international best practices and standards. We consider that the overall preservation and respect of party autonomy and the focus on more streamlined and efficient proceedings will build the UAE’s reputation as a preferred seat for international arbitration in the region. We remain hopeful in the courts’ significant role in appropriately applying and preserving the spirit of the Law. The Executive Regulations, which are in the pipeline, will also undoubtedly clarify some of the issues raised in hope of a more rationalised and synchronised proceedings among the various players in UAE seated arbitrations.</p>\r\n<em>For further information, please contact <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/essam-al-tamimi/\">Essam Al Tamimi</a> (e.tamimi@tamimi.com) or <a href=\"http://localhost:8888/tamimi/lawyer/sara-aranjo/\">Sara Koleilat-Aranjo</a> (s.aranjo@tamimi.com).</em>'),
