INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261212, 25333, '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<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<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<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<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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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>'),
(261213, 25333, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(261214, 25333, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
(261215, 25333, '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<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<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<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<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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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\">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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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>'),
(261216, 25333, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261217, 25333, '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'),
(261218, 25333, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(261219, 25333, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261220, 25334, 'PostID', '7929'),
(261221, 25334, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261222, 25334, 'PostTitle', 'A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
(261223, 25334, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261224, 25334, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
(261225, 25334, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261226, 25334, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
(261227, 25334, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261228, 25334, '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'),
(261229, 25334, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(261230, 25334, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261231, 25335, 'PostID', '7929'),
(261232, 25335, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261233, 25335, 'PostTitle', 'A High Threshold for Suing Arbitrators in UAE'),
(261234, 25335, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261235, 25335, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:45:01'),
(261236, 25335, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261237, 25335, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit'),
(261238, 25335, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261239, 25335, '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'),
(261240, 25335, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(261241, 25335, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261382, 25348, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261383, 25348, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(261384, 25348, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261385, 25348, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261386, 25348, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261387, 25348, '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'),
(261388, 25348, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261389, 25348, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261390, 25349, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261391, 25349, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261392, 25349, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261393, 25349, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261394, 25349, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261395, 25349, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261396, 25349, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261397, 25349, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261398, 25349, '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'),
(261399, 25349, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261400, 25349, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261401, 25350, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261402, 25350, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261403, 25350, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261404, 25350, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261405, 25350, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261406, 25350, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261407, 25350, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261408, 25350, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261409, 25350, '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'),
(261410, 25350, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261411, 25350, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261412, 25351, 'ClientIP', '127.0.0.1'),
(261413, 25351, 'Username', 'Plugin'),
(261414, 25351, 'PromoMessage', 'See who is logged in, create user productivity reports, get notified instantly via email of important changes, add search and much more. <strong><a href=\"https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/admin.php?page=wsal-auditlog-pricing\">Upgrade to Premium</a></strong> | <strong><a href=\"https://www.wpsecurityauditlog.com/premium-features/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=page&utm_content=alert+more+info&utm_campaign=upgrade+premium\" target=\"_blank\">More Information</a></strong>'),
(261415, 25351, 'PromoName', 'Upgrade to Premium'),
(261416, 25352, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261417, 25352, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261418, 25352, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261419, 25352, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261420, 25352, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261421, 25352, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261422, 25352, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261423, 25352, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261424, 25352, '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'),
(261425, 25352, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261426, 25352, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261427, 25353, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261428, 25353, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261429, 25353, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261430, 25353, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261431, 25353, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261432, 25353, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261433, 25353, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(261434, 25353, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(261435, 25353, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261436, 25353, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261437, 25353, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(261438, 25353, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261439, 25353, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\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<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261440, 25353, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261441, 25353, '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'),
(261442, 25353, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261443, 25353, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261444, 25354, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261445, 25354, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261446, 25354, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261447, 25354, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261448, 25354, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261449, 25354, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261450, 25354, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261451, 25354, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261452, 25354, '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'),
(261453, 25354, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261454, 25354, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261455, 25355, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261456, 25355, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261457, 25355, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261458, 25355, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261459, 25355, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261460, 25355, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261461, 25355, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261462, 25355, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261463, 25355, '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'),
(261464, 25355, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261465, 25355, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261466, 25356, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261467, 25356, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261468, 25356, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261469, 25356, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261470, 25356, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261471, 25356, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261472, 25356, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261473, 25356, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261474, 25356, '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'),
(261475, 25356, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261476, 25356, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261477, 25357, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261478, 25357, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261479, 25357, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261480, 25357, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261481, 25357, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261482, 25357, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261483, 25357, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(261484, 25357, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(261485, 25357, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261486, 25357, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261487, 25357, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(261488, 25357, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261489, 25357, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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\"><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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261490, 25357, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261491, 25357, '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'),
(261492, 25357, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261493, 25357, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261494, 25358, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261495, 25358, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261496, 25358, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261497, 25358, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261498, 25358, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261499, 25358, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261500, 25358, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261501, 25358, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261502, 25358, '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'),
(261503, 25358, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261504, 25358, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261505, 25359, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261506, 25359, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261507, 25359, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261508, 25359, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261509, 25359, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261510, 25359, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261511, 25359, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261512, 25359, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261513, 25359, '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'),
(261514, 25359, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261515, 25359, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261516, 25360, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261517, 25360, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261518, 25360, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261519, 25360, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261520, 25360, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261521, 25360, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261522, 25360, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(261523, 25360, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(261524, 25360, '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'),
(261525, 25360, 'CurrentUserID', '1'),
(261526, 25360, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(261527, 25361, 'PostID', '7933'),
(261528, 25361, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(261529, 25361, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(261530, 25361, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(261531, 25361, 'PostDate', '2018-08-01 07:44:13'),
(261532, 25361, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261533, 25361, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(261534, 25361, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(261535, 25361, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261536, 25361, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(261537, 25361, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(261538, 25361, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261539, 25361, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261550, 25362, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261561, 25363, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261579, 25365, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261607, 25367, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261618, 25368, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261636, 25370, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7929&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261653, 25371, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft  wp-image-8076\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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>'),
(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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261664, 25372, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/a-high-threshold-for-suing-arbitrators-in-uae/'),
(261675, 25373, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261779, 25382, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261790, 25383, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261801, 25384, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261812, 25385, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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;');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261826, 25386, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261840, 25387, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261851, 25388, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261862, 25389, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261873, 25390, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261884, 25391, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (<a href=\"mailto:a.ghoneim@tamimi.com\">a.ghoneim@tamimi.com</a>).');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(261898, 25392, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7982 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261912, 25393, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261923, 25394, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261934, 25395, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/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=\"https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/enforcement-and-challenges-to-arbitral-awards-under-the-new-arbitration-law-in-the-uae/'),
(261962, 25397, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261973, 25398, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/can-a-main-contractor-prevent-an-employer-from-appointing-a-new-main-contractor/'),
(261984, 25399, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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', 'https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(261995, 25400, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(262006, 25401, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(262017, 25402, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/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://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/admissibility-and-reliability-of-electronic-evidence-before-qatari-courts/'),
(262028, 25403, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(262029, 25403, 'MetaKey', 'content');
