<p>The ruling is the latest in a series of positive decisions rendered  pursuant to the UAE acceding to the New York Convention in November  2006. It tackles different arguments relating to the scope of  jurisdiction of local courts with respect to foreign awards, the burden  of proof for setting aside the award and the scope of review allowed  from the lower courts.</p>
<p>Summary of facts: &nbsp;</p>
<p>The Claimant (an international steel trader) entered into a purchase  agreement with the Respondent (a contractor domiciled in Dubai) under  which the Respondent purchased a consignment of steel sheeting from the  Claimant.</p>
<p>The Parties agreed to refer any dispute arising from their agreement  to be resolved by way of DIFC-LCIA arbitration seated in London.&nbsp;</p>
<p>A payment dispute arose between the parties which was referred to  arbitration according to their agreement. The arbitration tribunal  rendered two awards for the Claimant, the first award concerned damages  under the agreement and the second award concerned arbitration and legal  costs. Consequently, the Claimant initiated legal action before Dubai  Court of First Instance seeking enforcement of the two arbitral awards  issued against the Respondent, and requested that the precautionary  attachment be confirmed as enforceable.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<p>Procedural History</p>
<p>- First Instance Court:</p>
<p>The Respondent for the court to set aside the two arbitral awards&nbsp; on the following grounds:</p>
<p>a- The signatory of the arbitration agreement did not posses required  authority to agree to arbitrate on behalf of the Respondent nor the  authority required to dispose of the right which is the subject of the  dispute.&nbsp;</p>
<p>b- Procedures of appointing the arbitrator were invalid.&nbsp;</p>
<p>c- The two arbitral awards were issued without an arbitration deed as  required by Article 216 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (CPL) and  Article 5 (c) of the New York Convention.&nbsp;</p>
<p>d- The arbitration proceedings were invalid as the arbitral awards  were rendered by application of the English law in contradiction with  the parties&rsquo; agreement to arbitrate under DIFC rules. &nbsp;</p>
<p>e- The Arbitrator failed to administer the oath to the witnesses as required by Article 211 of CPL.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of First Instance ruled the following:</p>
<p>- In the main action: to recognise the two arbitral awards subject of  dispute and to confirm the precautionary attachment filed by the  Claimant.&nbsp;</p>
<p>- In the counter action: to dismiss the counter claim filed by the Respondent for lack of jurisdiction.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the lower  court&rsquo;s judgment; consequently the Respondent challenged the judgment  before the Court of Cassation.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Judgment: &nbsp;</p>
<p>The appeal is based on five grounds.</p>
<p>The agreement between the parties was invalid, it was not signed by  the manager of the company who is the authorised signatory. The  Respondent, during proceedings before the lower court, requested that  the Claimant produces original of the agreement, however the latter  failed to produce the original and merely submitted a faxed copy  alleging that the agreement was concluded via fax.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of Cassation rejected this argument. The lower courts  allowed the Respondent to realise its defence by identifying its  employee who signed the contract in order to determine whether or not  such employee was granted the authority to sign agreements on behalf of  the manager. However, the Respondent denied knowing the identity of the  employee and denied having concluded the agreement contrary to its  admissions in its memorandum before the lower courts in which the  Respondent admitted having concluded the agreement and only concerned  its defence around irregularity in the arbitration proceedings.  Furthermore, Article 5 of the New York Convention of 1958 placed the  burden of proof on the party claiming nullity of an arbitration award in  this case the Respondent who merely denied the documents without  furnishing any evidence supporting its allegations.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The First Instance Court dismissed the Respondent&rsquo;s counter claim for  lack of jurisdiction on grounds that such jurisdiction belonged to the  arbitrator who issued the two arbitral awards and that the court&rsquo;s  supervision is limited to ensuring that the arbitral awards were issued  in compliance with Federal Decree no. 43 of 2006 (by which the UAE  acceded to the New York Convention of 1958 on the recognition and  enforcement of foreign arbitral awards). The Respondent further stated  that the New York Convention provisions do not preclude an action for  setting aside an arbitral award. The Respondent requested setting aside  the arbitral awards as per Article 206 of the CPL which states that it  is permissible for parties to request setting aside arbitral awards  while the action to ratify such award is being heard before courts.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of Cassation rejected this argument. It is concluded from  provisions of the CPL in relation to arbitration and the procedures to  be followed by the court when ratifying arbitral awards, in particular  articles 212, 213 and 215 that the national courts have the jurisdiction  to either ratify/recognise or set aside an arbitral award that was  issued within the UAE, otherwise the court is compelled to apply rules  concerning arbitral awards issued in a foreign state.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is also construed from Article 238 of CPL that rules of  international conventions which were ratified by the UAE are considered  as internal legislation within the UAE and it is compulsory for the  national courts to apply such rules to all disputes arising in relation  to the execution of foreign arbitral awards and foreign judgments. &nbsp;</p>
<p>The two arbitral awards subject of dispute were issued in London in  accordance to the New York Convention on recognition and execution of  foreign arbitral awards, therefore the UAE courts jurisdiction in  relation to foreign arbitral awards is only limited to ensuring they do  not contravene the required procedural and substantive forms for awards  as per articles 4 and 5 of the New York Convention. The Court of  Cassation confirmed that the two arbitral awards fulfilled these  requirements.</p>
<p>The Respondent argued the invalidity of the arbitration clause  included in the agreement as well as the invalidity of the procedures by  which the arbitrator was appointed in accordance to Article 44/7 of the  DIFC arbitration rules. Furthermore, The Arbitrator failed to  administer the oath to the witnesses as per Article 211 of CPL.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of Cassation rejected this argument. As mentioned above,  Article 5 of the New York Convention placed the burden of proof on the  party claiming nullity of an arbitration award. The Respondent in this  case requested to set aside the arbitral award failed to produce any  evidence to support the above allegations.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Respondent further claimed that the jurisdiction to hear this case was for the DIFC courts as per the parties&rsquo; agreement.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of Cassation held that these arguments were inadmissible.  The effect of Federal Decree no. 43 of 2006, is that all UAE courts have  the jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards which  means that parties can resolve to any court in the UAE to request  enforcing a foreign arbitral award.</p>
<p>The arbitral awards were issued in contradiction to Islamic Sharia  and public policy in the UAE as it awarded usurious interests.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Court of Cassation rejected this argument. Prohibition on  agreeing to usurious interest in any type of civil or commercial  transaction under Article 409 of the Penal Law and Article 714 of the  Civil Transactions Law is limited to transactions between individuals  without extending to transactions between individuals and corporate  entities which can agree with other corporate entities or individuals on  conventional interest. As per the documents, the parties to the  agreement subject of dispute in question are corporate entities;  therefore any interest awarded is permissible.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Accordingly, the petition to cassation was dismissed.</p>
<p><em>Practice Note</em></p>
<p>The judgment in study has affirmed several important principals  concerning commercial international arbitration. At the international  level, the judgment as mentioned earlier confirmed the UAE Courts&rsquo;  determination to comply with the New York Convention. On the domestic  level, the judgment confirmed the&nbsp; principle that all UAE courts shall  have the jurisdiction to hear actions in relation to confirmation and  enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.</p>