Even More Arbitration Friendly Decisions from the UAE Courts

Since the Federal Arbitration Law (Law No. 6 of 2018) was passed in the UAE in 2018, there has been a consistent trend in 2025 of the UAE Courts issuing judgments which are supportive of arbitration in the Emirates. This has been illustrated by a number of recent Court of Cassation judgments across the UAE.

We should note that these “onshore” Courts are distinct from the English language Courts in the DIFC and ADGM freezones in Dubai and Abu Dhabi respectively.  

However, it is common that all Courts of the UAE including these ones are pro-arbitration and will support parties in upholding arbitration agreements and supervising arbitration proceedings seated in the UAE and elsewhere.

Arbitral Tribunals can issue Anti-Suit Injunctions without interference

The Dubai Court of Cassation recently issued a significant decision in Case No. 657 of 2025, where it confirmed an arbitral tribunal’s power to issue an anti-suit injunction in a UAE-seated arbitration, and reaffirmed an arbitral tribunal’s authority to order interim or provisional measures.

The judgment arose from an ICC arbitration seated in Dubai, where the arbitral tribunal issued an order preventing the respondent party by filing claims in other courts on issues covered by the arbitration agreement. The anti-suit injunction was challenged before the Dubai Court of Appeal and annulled on the basis that it violated a party’s right to access courts and the Federal Arbitration Law.

The Dubai Court of Cassation reversed the ruling, affirming the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and declaring that onshore courts lacked authority to intervene in such interim decisions. The anti-suit injunction was upheld.

The Dubai Court of Cassation held that Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law grants arbitral tribunals in UAE-seated arbitrations the power to order interim or precautionary measures (including anti-suit injunctions) as it may deem necessary. It was also noted that the arbitral tribunal had the sole authority to modify, suspend or revoke any measures ordered, either upon request or by the arbitral tribunal’s own initiative.

Clarifications on signatures in arbitral awards

On 4 August 2025, the Authority for Unification of Federal and Local Judicial Principles (the Authority) issued Decision No. 1 of 2025, clarifying the position on the signature of arbitral awards in the UAE.

Historically, it was understood that arbitral awards issued in a UAE-seated arbitration, or foreign arbitral awards to be enforced in the UAE (especially in Dubai), needed to be signed on every page in order to be valid and enforceable. Some Emirates adopted a different position; the Ras-Al-Khaimah Court of Cassation considered that there was no requirement for arbitrators to sign all pages, and this was adopted by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in a number of cases. These differing approaches led to uncertainty as regards the requirements for issuing a valid award under the Federal Arbitration Law.

The conflicting positions were resolved by the Authority in its decision, and it was decided, amongst other things that: (1) there was no provision in the Federal Arbitration Law for an arbitral award to be signed on every page, and an arbitral award was valid and enforceable if signed by all arbitrators (or the majority), on the final page of the arbitral award; and (2) Failure of an arbitrator to sign on every page of an arbitral award did not violate the public policy requirements under Article 53 of the Federal Arbitration Law, and excessive formality would go against public policy as it could cause difficulties with enforcement and increase costs.

This decision unifies the position in the UAE and also reinforces the notion that the UAE is an enforcement friendly jurisdiction, which will be welcomed by legal practitioners not only in the UAE, but abroad.

In light of the above, on 11 September 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation issued a decision in Case No. 778 of 2025, confirming that there is no requirement under either the Federal Arbitration Law or the New York Convention for foreign arbitral awards to be signed by all tribunal members.

Unilateral Arbitration Agreements are not Enforceable

The Dubai Court of Cassation ruled in Case No. 735 of 2024 (Commercial), that a unilateral arbitration agreement is not a valid and binding arbitration agreement under UAE law.

A dispute arose between a contractor and subcontractor about payment under two subcontract agreements, which contained identical arbitration agreements. The clause stated that if a dispute was not resolved by amicable settlement, it should be referred to either: i) arbitration at the Dubai Chamber of Commerce, or ii) the local courts of the UAE, and the choice of forum was to be decided by the contractor. The subcontractor commenced a claim in the Dubai Court of First Instance, and the contractor argued that arbitration was the correct forum for the dispute. The contractor’s argument was rejected by the Court of First Instance, and the decision was then appealed in the Court of Appeal on the basis that the Dubai courts lacked jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause, as it gave the contractor the sole right to determine which forum would resolve any dispute between the parties. The appeal was rejected, and the contractor then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Dubai Court of Cassation upheld the decisions of the lower courts, that unilateral arbitration agreements are not valid and binding, and in order to be valid, the arbitration agreement must be clear and explicit, with no ambiguity or vagueness, and the agreement to arbitrate cannot be presumed or implicit.

Unilateral arbitration clauses are commonly used (e.g. by banks, employers or insurers), as they can restrict a party to a single dispute forum. This judgment may now cause parties to review their existing contracts and arbitration agreements and reconsider their joint intention. We consider that it is likely that  UAE onshore Courts may well find unilateral arbitration clauses unenforceable.

Legal Costs are recoverable in ICC arbitration

There has been an ongoing question regarding the enforceability of costs orders issued by arbitral tribunals in arbitrations seated in the UAE. This was notably absent from the Federal Arbitration Law, which only deals with Even as recently as February 2024, the Dubai Court of Cassation in Case No. 821 of 2023 (Commercial), upheld the decision of a lower court to partially annul an ICC award in order to render the tribunal’s costs order unenforceable.

In Case No. 756 of 2024, in March 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation appear to have resolved the question of recoverability of legal costs. Importantly, the Court considered that the mutual consent of parties to resolve a dispute under a particular set of arbitral rules (such as the ICC rules) binds those parties to those rules, except for any rule that would be contrary to public order.

Due to the ongoing cases, for arbitrations seated in the UAE, we advise that parties expressly agree in arbitration agreements (or with the tribunal at the first procedural order or terms of reference) that the tribunal should be granted the power to award costs.

Positive developments, but some uncertainties remain

These various cases demonstrate that the Courts of the UAE, and those onshore in Dubai in particular, are keen to demonstrate their credentials as arbitration friendly. Positive developments have been consistently seen in the last 12 months, albeit uncertainties remain in some areas.

Emily Hook, Paralegal, assisted in the preparation of this briefing.