Author: afridi-angell

Dubai Court of Cassation clarifies the application of Optional Arbitration Clauses

In a decision issued in July 2021, the Dubai Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause should be construed narrowly, and emphasized that everything that may be waived or prevents its [i.e., the arbitration clause’s] application must be sought.  This judgment, which rejected a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts based on the existence of a purported arbitration agreement, was discussed in our inBrief dated 12 September 2021. The gist of the judgment of the Court of Appeal was that the dispute resolution clause of the contract in question included language stating that any referral to arbitration will be ‘without prejudice’ to the jurisdiction of the UAE Courts and ‘subject to agreement between the parties’ and, following the principle of narrow construction of arbitration agreements, the Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that an agreement was reached between the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.

 

The judgment of the Dubai Court of Appeal was appealed to the Dubai Court of Cassation. The appellant took up the following arguments in appeal, among others:

 

(a) there are multiple references to arbitration in the contract between the parties (in addition to the dispute resolution clause), which was evidence that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration; and

 

(b) there is evidence that the parties negotiated the applicable arbitration rules before entering into the contract, which is evidence that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration.

 

In October 2021, the Court of Cassation affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and rejected the appeal. In rejecting the argument summarized in (a) above, the Court of Cassation relied

on the principle that arbitration agreements must be narrowly construed, which is now a common reference in judgments addressing the validity of an arbitration agreement. The Court of Cassation went further, and held that where there is an optional arbitration clause and one of the parties commences litigation, the other may not seek to rely on the arbitration agreement to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts. Unfortunately, the Court of Cassation did not elaborate further on this principle in this judgment, and is a missed opportunity for useful guidance on issues surrounding optional arbitration clauses. Would it have made a difference if it was a unilateral optional arbitration clause? What would have been the position if a party commences arbitration, as opposed to litigation, first?

 

In rejecting the argument summarized in (b) above, the Court of Cassation held that as the evidence relied on by the appellant was not produced in the lower courts, it is not admissible before the Court of Cassation, which is a court of law in the UAE.

 

This judgment highlights the need to have a carefully drafted dispute resolution clause, particularly where the parties wish to have disputes resolved through arbitration. ■

POD inBrief – Competition & Anti-Trust Law in the UAE

 

This episode of POD inBrief features Bashir Ahmed,  partner, and Abdus Samad, senior associate, where they discuss competition, anti-trust, and price fixing in the UAE.

 

Listen to “Afridi & Angell’s POD inBrief _ Competition and Anti-Trust in the UAE” on Spreaker.
 
An overview  is mentioned below:    

Overview:  

– Recent regulations to the UAE competition and anti-trust law 

– Exemptions to the law 

– Merger clearance and due-diligence advice 

–  How businesses can organise themselves to be in line of the law 

Planning for Non-Residency: Doing it Right

Where you choose to be resident is obviously driven by more than just the tax consequences, but for many people tax is a major factor in that decision.  Canada, like most other countries, taxes on the basis of residency.  If you are a Canadian “resident” for tax purposes, you pay Canadian income tax on your worldwide income, and you have broad reporting obligations to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on your foreign interests.  There are many ways for a Canadian resident to optimize their tax position both in life and upon death, but none are quite as effective as becoming non-resident. When you are non-resident, you are not subject to Canadian income tax (with some exceptions regarding Canadian source income) and this article aims to provide a general overview of what you should consider when planning for non-residency.[1]

 

First, be sure you really do cease being resident for tax purposes.  Canada’s definition of “residency” relies on assessing your life as a whole and identifying the number and importance of so-called “connecting factors” that you have in Canada.  This is a widely written about issue and will not be discussed in any detail here, other than to remind you to make sure you really do break ties with Canada sufficiently to ensure you are indeed a non-resident.[2]  Next, and a point that seems to be strangely overlooked more often than one might think, is that you also need to clearly obtain and keep residency status somewhere else, otherwise the CRA will not agree that you have sufficiently severed your residential ties to Canada.  Living a mobile lifestyle where you spend a few months here and a few months there without putting down roots anywhere, may not be enough to cut ties in the CRA’s view.

 

You should also be aware that you will trigger a taxable event upon your exit from Canada.  You are deemed to have disposed of many of your capital assets and realised any latent gain (or loss) on them, and you will be taxed on the gain, and this includes assets worldwide (and virtual assets like cryptocurrencies). There are important exclusions to the assets that are deemed disposed of, including Canadian real estate[1], RRSPs (Registered Retirement Savings Plan) and TFSAs (Tax-Free Savings Plan), and life insurance policies, among other things.  Importantly, the CRA expects you to have obtained valuations of your assets at or around the date of your exit to support the values you report, and that there will be a cost to having such valuations carried out, so be sure to plan for this.

 

Once you have successfully become a non-resident of Canada, and become a resident of another country, are you safely outside of the reach of the CRA?  In many important ways the answer is yes, but a non-resident remains taxable on certain income and property.  Summarised here are some important points to bear in mind as a new or prospective non-resident.

 

  • RRSPs: Nothing happens to your RRSP account(s) when you cease to be resident in Canada.  In your year of exit, you can still contribute to the account to the full extent of your eligibility for that year (although it might be low if you leave early in the year).  The funds in your RRSP are sheltered from Canadian tax while they remain in the RRSP, but this may not be the case in your new country of residence, which may view it simply as any other investment account and may tax it accordingly.[2]  You can withdraw some or all of the funds in an RRSP that you had accumulated prior to your exit.  As a non-resident, these withdrawals will be subject to the non-resident withholding tax of 25 per cent, but that is a much lower rate than the graduated rate you would otherwise have been subject to had you withdrawn the funds whilst being a Canadian resident (unless you withdrew the funds during a very low-income year).  Once the funds are out, you are free to use or invest them and you will not be subject to Canadian tax on the proceeds of such investments going forward.  Withdrawal is not always the best option though, as you may wish to simply keep the funds sheltered in the RRSP for a time in the distant future, or to keep as part of your estate and pass on to a spouse on a rollover basis, for example.

 

  • TFSAs: Similar to RRSPs, nothing happens to these upon exit and such accounts remain sheltered from Canadian tax, including upon withdrawal (no non-resident withholding tax either).  Additionally, like RRSPs, note that other countries may simply view these as regular investment accounts and tax them accordingly to their regular rules of taxation.  The same advice therefore applies regarding crystallization of latent gains that may be unrealised, prior to exit.

 

  • Real estate: If you continue to own real estate in Canada as a non-resident, you are probably leasing it out (if it is residential, you should absolutely be leasing it out on arm’s length terms or your non-resident status will be in jeopardy).  Rental income from a Canadian property is Canadian source of income and will be subject to non-resident withholding tax, and may also be subject to preferential treatment under a bilateral tax treaty, if applicable.  Canadian source income, whether from real estate, business, investments or otherwise, will result in the requirement to continue to file returns with the CRA.

 

  • Investments: Dividends you receive from Canadian sources are subject to non-resident withholding tax, which may be reduced by an applicable treaty.  Interest (assuming it is from an arm’s length party), is not subject to Canadian tax when paid to a non-resident (not the case if the source is not an arm’s length party).  These income sources also give rise to Canadian filing requirements, even if no tax is actually payable.

 

  • Foreign trusts: It may occur to you that setting up an offshore trust is attractive now that you are no longer a tax resident of Canada. It may well be that there are excellent opportunities available to you since you will be clear of many of Canada’s aggressive reporting and attribution rules that apply to trusts, but, as with most dealings with trusts, professional advice is critical.  Canada’s deemed residency rules as they relate to foreign trusts can catch many people off guard.  If you establish a trust within 5 years of your departure from Canada, for example, and there are Canadian beneficiaries, that trust will be deemed resident in (i.e., taxable in) Canada even though you established it after you were firmly and clearly non-resident.  There are similar considerations that will apply to the years prior to your return to Canada too, so good planning from the outset will be critical to ensure you do not inadvertently lose out on some of the tax advantages of non-residency.  Things to consider are the timing of the trusts’ establishment, how to structure the initial settlement and future contributions, who will make those contributions, who the beneficiaries will be, whether that will change in the future, and when they will actually receive any funds from the trust and under what conditions (e.g., only if and when they cease to be Canadian resident?), among other things.  These decisions will also affect what information the trustee is obligated to keep on file, and may be obligated to report, so bear that in mind if you have privacy concerns.

 

  • Wills and POAs: Any wills, powers of attorney, and other estate planning you may have done prior to your exit should be re-assessed in light of your new residency situation, which likely came with a shift in at least some of your assets, and likely more of a shift the longer you remain non-resident.  Multiple wills are common among the expatriate community; one (or more) for assets in Canada, and another for assets in your new country of residence, and perhaps more for certain assets elsewhere such as real estate or bank accounts you may own in yet a third country.  A local will in each jurisdiction can dramatically ease the estate administration process; it avoids the need to seek resealing of foreign probate, or equivalent, in each jurisdiction, a cumbersome and often non-transparent process.  Multiple will preparation requires careful drafting to ensure the documents work seamlessly together and do not conflict, and, of course, to ensure they meet the requirements of the jurisdiction in which each is intended to operate.  Similarly, any POAs you may wish to have in place in the event of your incapacity will need to be prepared (or re-prepared) in your new place of residence to ensure they are effective there.

 

Determining how to break residential ties with Canada (and not accidentally re-establishing them), reporting to the CRA in an effective manner on exit, structuring your assets while non-resident in the context of a broader wealth and estate plan, and knowing your continuing Canadian tax or reporting obligations even as a non-resident, are all key areas to consider in order to ensure your non-residency is both compliant and tax efficient.  The issues discussed in this article are only examples intended to provide a general overview of some of the common considerations, but there are often many other factors to consider depending on your specific circumstances, assets, plans, and risk tolerance.

 

If you are considering non-residency status in Canada and want to make sure you get the most out of your years abroad or are otherwise concerned about the tax implications of the move, please contact us and we will be delighted to provide the guidance you need. ■

 

 

[1] As a quick aside, note that Canadian citizenship is not the same as residency; a Canadian citizen can become non-resident forever and still retain citizenship.

 

[2] Consider obtaining a copy of the CRA’s form NR73, which includes a list of questions about your ties to Canada.  If you answer yes to 5 or more questions, you may need to break more ties or seek advice for more guidance.  Refer to the NR73 for your own reference only, but I do not suggest filing one.  Filing your “final tax return” is generally sufficient and the preferred approach.

 

[3] Note that a “principal residence” undergoes a “change of use” rather than a deemed disposition, although the effect is similar in that there is a deemed realization of the latent gain, but the principal residence exemption can still apply to shelter the full amount (assuming the property is otherwise eligible for the principal residence exemption for all the years the property was owned).

 

[4] Consider crystallizing any latent gains within the RRSP account prior to exit, for this reason (i.e., to minimize capital gains that may be realized as a non-resident when they are no longer sheltered).  Unless of course your new place of residence is a very low or no tax jurisdiction.

Should you continue to include DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses or EMAC arbitration clauses in your agreement? Dubai Decree No. 34 of 2021 concerning the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“Decree”)

 

The Decree, which came into force on 20th September 2021, abolished the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC) and the DIFC Arbitration Institute (DAI) with immediate effect and has raised multiple queries in the legal and business communities, particularly as to whether parties should still opt for EMAC or DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses in agreements that are presently being drafted.

 

Pursuant to the Decree, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) will replace all rights and obligations of the now abolished EMAC and DAI. The DIAC has been granted a period of no more than six months to effectively replace EMAC and the DAI.

 

Although the Decree does not abolish or even make reference to the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre was established consequent to an agreement entered into between the DAI and the LCIA; meaning that, the abolishment of the DAI calls to question (at the very least) the mandate under which the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre continues to operate. It is expected that there will be further regulation, perhaps in the form of administrative orders, that will hopefully clarify the status of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre.

 

However, for present purposes, two questions arise, (i) what effect does an EMAC/DIFC-LCIA arbitration clause have consequent to the Decree; and (ii) should parties continue to include EMAC/DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses in their agreements.

 

Pursuant to Article 6 (a) of the Decree, all agreements executed as at the date the Decree came into force (i.e., 20 September 2021) that contain a clause providing for “arbitration in the Canceled Arbitration Centers” (i.e., EMAC and by implication DIFC-LCIA) “shall be valid and effective”, and the DIAC shall replace “the Canceled Arbitration Centers” in “hearing and resolving disputes arising from such agreements” unless parties agree otherwise:

 

All agreements concluded as at the date of entry into force of this Decree for resorting to arbitration in the Canceled Arbitration Centers shall be valid and effective, and the Dubai International Arbitration Centre shall replace these centers in hearing and resolving disputes arising from these agreements, unless the parties thereto agree to otherwise. [LexisNexis translation]

 

The Decree therefore provides some comfort to parties who have opted for EMAC/DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses in agreements that were entered into on or before 20 September 2021, as the Decree specifically provides that such arbitration agreements will be valid and effective.

 

In addition, Article 8 (c) of the Decree provides that the arbitration rules of “the Canceled Arbitration Centers” (i.e., the EMAC rules and by implication, the DIFC-LCIA rules) and the DIAC will continue to apply until DIAC approves its new arbitration rules. This, however, raises another concern. If an EMAC arbitration, for example, is initiated after 20 September 2021 (and prior to DIAC issuing its new arbitration rules), does it mean that in terms of Article 6 (a) and Article 8 (c) of the Decree, the arbitration must be initiated under the EMAC arbitration rules and thereafter, the new DIAC arbitration rules become applicable once issued by the DIAC? If so, such eventuality is likely to raise multiple practical and legal issues.

 

The next issue to consider is what effect an EMAC/DIFC-LCIA arbitration clause has in an agreement that was concluded after 20 September 2021. Would such an agreement be valid? And which institution will administer such an arbitration? A strict interpretation of Article 6 (a) of the Decree would suggest that the comfort given in Article 6 (a) of the Decree is limited only to agreements concluded on or before 20 September 2021. For agreements entered into after 20 September 2021, there is unfortunately no definite answer to this question as of now.

 

It remains to be seen whether further regulations to be promulgated pursuant to the Decree will expressly provide that any reference to an EMAC/DIFC-LCIA arbitration clause will be construed as a reference to an arbitration administered under the DIAC arbitration rules. Similar provision was made when the DIAC was first created in 2007 and references to arbitration under the Dubai Chamber of Commerce Rules were deemed to be a reference to the DIAC Rules.

 

Until there is more clarity, the prudent approach would be not to opt for EMAC or DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses in agreements that are presently being drafted. We understand that the relevant authorities are in discussion regarding these issues, and we expect clarifications to be issued soon. ■

Yes, its groundbreaking, but what does it mean for you? A rough guide to the implications of Decree 34 for parties in arbitration in Dubai

Parties in the process of arbitrating disputes, thinking of commencing arbitration, or even thinking of including arbitration provisions in a contract have been given a lot to think about, thanks to the changes introduced by Decree 34 of 2021. It is early days yet, and we need to see how matters develop. With that caveat out of the way, here is a rough guide of what Decree 34 could mean for parties in arbitration in the UAE.

 

You are party to an ongoing arbitration under the DIAC Rules

Carry on, you’re the least affected by the Decree.

 

You are party to an ongoing arbitration under the DIFC-LCIA or EMAC Rules

Unfortunately, you are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Although the Decree appears to contemplate that ongoing DIFC-LCIA and EMAC arbitration proceedings will continue without interruption, the language of the Decree also appears to make this conditional on the DIAC and its administrative body taking over supervision of any such proceedings. Afridi & Angell’s Legal Alert of 23 September 2021 addresses this scenario. Article 8(c) of the Decree provides that the DIFC-LCIA and EMAC Rules will continue to be applied to the extent they do not conflict with the Decree and the Statute, until the approval of the arbitration and conciliation rules of the DIAC by the DIAC Board of Directors. This seems to suggest that the DIFC-LCIA Rules and EMAC Rules will be disapplied once a new set of DIAC Rules are approved. Parties and arbitrators will need to tread carefully in order to avoid potential challenges to final awards.

 

You have ongoing litigation (either before the Dubai Court or the DIFC Court) in relation to arbitration

These matters will carry on. Article 7 of the Decree provides that the two courts will continue to hear all cases, petitions and appeals related to arbitration awards/procedures issued by tribunals appointed by the DIAC, DIFC-LCIA and EMAC.

 

You have a contract which provides for arbitration under the DIAC Rules

If you have made provision for the seat of the arbitration (e.g. Dubai, or the DIFC), that provision will be upheld and applied. However, if you have not made provision, the default seat will be the DIFC. Prior to the Decree, onshore Dubai would have been the default seat. Keep an eye out for revisions to the DIAC Rules – the version of the rules that will apply if a dispute goes to arbitration will depend on the language used in your dispute resolution clause.

 

You have a contract which provides for arbitration under the DIFC-LCIA or EMAC Rules

Although Article 6(A) of the Decree provides that all agreements which have been concluded by 20 September 2021 providing for arbitration under the DIFC-LCIA or EMAC Rules shall be considered as valid and effective, assuming that you do not run the risk of your claim being time-barred, you should consider waiting to see how matters develop before taking any steps. Article 6(A) goes on to provide that the DIAC will replace the DIFC-LCIA and EMAC in hearing and resolving disputes arising from these agreements. The DIAC has six months to effectively replace the EMAC and the DIFC Arbitration Institute, and a lot of the uncertainties should be resolved during this time. It may be necessary to consider amending your dispute resolution clause, depending how matters develop.

 

You are drafting a contract, and wondering what to put in as a dispute resolution clause

For the time being, and until the prevailing uncertainties are clarified, avoid opting for DIFC-LCIA or EMAC arbitration clauses. You can still opt for other institutional rules and have the DIFC as the seat of arbitration. The DIAC Rules, despite being possibly one of the oldest sets of institutional rules in the UAE, are suitable for most disputes. It is anticipated that the DIAC Rules will be overhauled very soon, and the recent amendments provide that the DIAC Court of Arbitration and the Board of Directors are empowered to issue and amend the DIAC Rules. ■

 

***

 

Regardless of which category you find yourself in, do not panic. Dubai is very nimble and proactive, and should soon iron out any issues that need to be addressed. Afridi & Angell’s dispute resolution team has extensive experience in advising on and representing clients in arbitrations. Should you have any questions, please contact the author or your usual Afridi & Angell contact.

Do you have an on-going DIFC-LCIA arbitration? If so, you should tread carefully: Dubai Decree No. 34 of 2021 Concerning the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“Decree”)

The Decree, which came into force on 20th September 2021, has abolished the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC) and the DIFC Arbitration Institute (DAI). The Decree has taken the local legal and business community by surprise, and has given rise to legitimate concerns as to its impact on arbitration proceedings presently underway.   

The Decree abolishes EMAC and the DAI with immediate effect and transfers all their assets, rights and obligations to the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which will in effect, replace EMAC and DAI. To this end, the DIAC has been granted a period of not more than six months to effectively replace EMAC and the DAI. The DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre was established consequent to an agreement entered into between the DAI and the LCIA; meaning that, the abolishment of the DAI (at the very least) calls to question the continuation of DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre.  

This alert very briefly highlights some of the questions that arise, by reference in particular to proceedings being undertaken under DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules (Rules), and considers the steps that might be required to mitigate potential challenges to the integrity of arbitration proceedings and any arbitration award that is issued under the Rules.  

While each case will need to be examined on its own particular circumstances, some of the more immediate concerns that arise are as follows:   

First, although the Decree appears to contemplate that ongoing DIFC-LCIA arbitration proceedings will continue without interruption, the language of the Decree also appears to make this conditional on the DIAC and its administrative body taking over supervision of any such proceedings.  Article 6(b) states as follows:  

The arbitral tribunals and committees formed as at the date of entry into force of this Decree at the Canceled Arbitration Centers and the Dubai International Arbitration Centre shall continue to hear and resolve all arbitration cases before them without interruption and in accordance with the rules and procedures adopted by them in this regard, unless the arbitration parties agree to otherwise, provided that the Dubai International Arbitration Centre and its Administrative Body shall undertake supervision over these cases. [LexisNexis translation]  

Therefore, a question arises as to how the proceedings would continue without interruption pending the replacement of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre with the DIAC.  Parties to an arbitration and their arbitrators will need to consider what steps might need to be adopted in order to cover the interim period, otherwise potential challenges to a final award can conceivably be made on the basis, for example, that the arbitration procedure adopted was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or was otherwise defective.   

Secondly, the role of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre and the LCIA Court is an integral part of the Rules and, therefore, in circumstances where the effect of the Decree calls into question the very existence of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre, tribunals and parties will need to consider how the arbitration can in fact continue under the Rules if the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre is removed from maintaining its traditional function which is embedded under the very same Rules. One such example is that Article 26.7 of the Rules requires the DIFC-LCIA Registrar to transmit the final award to the parties “authenticated by the Registrar as an DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre Award”.  This may no longer be possible.

Although the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre has very recently published an update assuring parties that it continues to deal with the day-to-day management of cases under the Rules, it is unclear by what authority it continues to do so, given that the DAI stands abolished as of 20th September 2021. This too could potentially translate into challenges to awards (or a refusal by a Court to recognize awards).
 
Thirdly, an important practical consideration for tribunal members will be the status of the tribunal fees and disbursements that might need to be incurred to attend hearings, particularly where arbitrators based outside of the UAE plan to incur travel and accommodation costs to attend hearings in person.  Given that all functions concerning payments of fees are to be taken over by the DIAC, arbitrators will need to account for potential delays in the reimbursement of expenses and payment of fees.   

Parties and arbitrators will need to give careful consideration to these factors and, notwithstanding the apparent intention under Article 6(b) of the Decree that proceedings should continue uninterrupted, parties and arbitrators will need to consider whether it might be prudent to stay or suspend proceedings until such time as the DIAC formally steps in, or until the parties and tribunal enter into an agreement that comprehensively covers some of the concerns highlighted above. A delay to proceedings would in such circumstances be inevitable, but the inconvenience will need to be balanced with the possible disastrous outcome if an award is set aside because of a failure to properly address the ramifications of the Decree.  

No doubt this development will eventually settle into a new norm, but until then, both arbitrators and parties should tread carefully. ■

POD inBrief – Employment Law in the UAE

This episode of Afridi & Angell’s POD inBrief focuses on the UAE’s employment law and is a dialogue between Charles Laubach, employment practice head at Afridi & Angell, and Kirsten Elizabeth, HR manager for a trading company.    


Kirsten has questions on workforce overtime rules, termination, and non-compete and confidentiality clauses amongst others.    

 

Listen to “Afridi & Angell’s POD inBrief_Employment in the UAE” on Spreaker.

 
 An overview of their discussion is mentioned below:    

Overview:  
– Employee overtime rules    
– Employee termination causes (legitimate reasons) and employee notice period    
– Employee end of service gratuity and savings plan    
– Employee contracts; non-compete and confidentiality clauses    
– Delayed termination of employee benefits (i.e., visas, health insurance and schooling)    
– Advice on COVID-19 reduced office space  

Further recognition of judge-made law, and new courts: more changes to the UAE’s Civil Procedure Code

The UAE’s Civil Procedure Code was enacted in 1992 as Federal Law No. 11, and the first amendments to the Code were made more than a decade later in 2005. Since 2014, almost each successive year has seen amendments being made, the most extensive of which were the regulations issued under Civil Procedure Code (the Regulations) which came into effect on 16 February 2019. The Regulations themselves were amended in 2020 by Cabinet Decision No. 33/2020.

 

Federal Decree No. 15 of 2020 (the Decree) and Cabinet Resolution No. 75 of 2021 (the Resolution) comprise the latest set of amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and the Regulations, and cover a range of issues from service of defendants, to the conduct of proceedings, and the execution of judgments. This article examines some of the more notable changes introduced by the Decree and the Resolution.

 

The creation of Single-Level Courts 

The Decree makes provisions for the UAE Minister of Justice or the head of the Judicial Authority of an Emirate to create a Single-Level Court, which shall comprise of three judges, one each drawn from the Court of First Instance of the Emirate, the Court of Appeal of the Emirate, and the Court of Cassation of the Emirate or the Federal Supreme Court (to allow for the fact that save for the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras al Khaimah, the final level of appeal for the other Emirates is the Federal Supreme Court). The Single-Level Court was first proposed several years ago and, when established, will have jurisdiction where parties have agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of that court, or where the subject matter falling within its jurisdiction is identified by regulations issued under the Civil Procedure Code (which is yet to happen). The court will only have jurisdiction over disputes which have a ‘definite value’  (i.e.  would  exclude  claims  for  unassessed damages) which is over AED 500,000. The judgments of the Single-Level Court will not be subject to appeal, except where the judgment is subjected to review under the provisions of Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Code, reversal pursuant to Article 187(bis) (discussed below) or where the judgment is defective as the parties were not properly summoned.  

 

Review of Court of Cassation judgments – a step towards further recognising judge-made law  

The UAE, being a civil law jurisdiction, does not have a system of binding judicial precedent as understood in common law systems. That said, while a single judgment of the UAE Courts does not bind, a line of authority established by the superior courts is influential, for example the principle that arbitration is an exceptional form of dispute resolution. Federal Law No. 10 of 2019 created a judicial tribunal comprising judges from the Federal Supreme Court and the Courts of Cassation to unify the federal and local judicial principles and precedents issued by these courts and to eliminate potential conflicts.

 

The role of judicial principles within the framework of UAE law is further recognised by the Decree, which identifies conflict with judicial principles as one of the grounds for appealing a judgment of a Court of Cassation. Prior to the Decree, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Code provided that a judgment of a Court of Cassation was not subject to appeal, but was subject to review in certain limited circumstances set out in sub-articles 1, 2 and 3 of Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Code (being fraud, forgery or false testimony, and suppression of conclusive evidence respectively). The Decree adds Article 187(bis) which provides that the Court of Cassation may at its own initiative or at the application of the party against who the judgment is issued, reverse a decision, among others, in the following cases:  

 

– where a procedural error (either by the court directly or by one of its departments) affecting the conclusion of the decision/judgment has occurred;

 

– where the decision/judgment is based on a repealed law, and a different outcome would result if the current law is applied; and

 

– the decision/judgment violates judicial principles established by the panel, or other entire court circuits, or if it violates the principles established by the court, or the principles established by the judicial tribunal created by Federal Law 10 of 2019.    

 

Where a party wishes to seek this remedy, an application for reversal should be made to the President of the Federal Supreme Court/Court of Cassation, with a deposit of AED 20,000. Applications may only be made within one year of the initial judgment. If the application for reversal is accepted, the matter will be remanded back to the court which issued the decision for reconsideration.

 

The amendments do leave some matters unresolved. There is no clear guidance as to what constitutes a judicial principle. The Decree is also silent regarding judgments of any courts other than the Federal Supreme Court and Courts of Cassation which may have become final, e.g. by reason of not being appealed, although the language suggests that this mechanism is limited to judgments of the Federal Supreme Court and Courts of Cassation.

 

Amendments regarding Payment Order applications

One of the key changes introduced through the Regulations was the expansion of the summary procedure known as Payment Orders, previously confined to disputes involving commercial instruments, to disputes which involve a written confirmation of debt. The Cabinet Resolution makes further changes to the law governing this procedure, notably the following:

 

– Amending Article 64 of the Regulations to require the judge to provide justification for the court’s decision when granting or denying a Payment Order application in relation to implementation of a commercial contract. Previously, justification was required only where the judge rejected an application.

 

– An appeal against a Payment Order (appeals are available where the value of the claim is more than AED 50,000) now may be made within 30 days of the decision. Previously, it was 15 days. The amendment also requires a detailed memorandum of appeal to be filed at the time of filing the appeal. Previously, a simple notice of appeal sufficed. Where the value of the claim is less than AED 50,000, a challenge must be made by way of an objection (or a ‘grievance’ as commonly referred to) within 15 days – the law with respect to such challenges has not changed.

 

– The Cabinet Resolution provides that in an appeal originating from a case has been filed as ordinary proceedings but the supervisory judge has instead issued a Payment Order, and the Court of Appeal takes the view that the requirements for issuing a Payment Order has not been met, the Court of Appeal may remand the matter to the Court of First Instance to be heard as an ordinary claim. Prior to the amendment, if the Court of Appeal takes the view that the requirements for issuing a Payment Order have not been met, the application would be dismissed.

 

Summoning of parties  

A constant theme in the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code since 2017 is the attempt to streamline the process of serving court process on defendants. The Cabinet Resolution take further steps in this direction by providing that:

– summons may be served by recorded audio or video calls, short message services, smart applications, email, fax, or any other means agreed between the parties from the method of service recognised in the Regulations;

 

– summons may be served at the defendant’s domicile, residence, or on their attorney, spouses, relatives or servants and that refusal to accept summons will be deemed to result in personal service; and

 

– summons may be served at a place of work on the defendant, his/her manager or the management of the workplace.  

 

If service cannot be affected as above, summons shall be served among others by publication on the court’s website or in newspapers, including a foreign language newspaper where the party sought to be summoned is not a UAE national. In practice service of summons can still be a time-consuming exercise in the UAE courts (less so in the Dubai Courts), and it is hoped that the changes made by the Cabinet Resolution will make this a more efficient process.    

 

Added scope for ad-hoc courts

Article 30(bis) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the Minister of Justice or the head of the Judicial Authority of an Emirate may create an ad-hoc court presided by one judge and assisted by two local or international experts to hear and determine certain matters that would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the major circuit of courts. The Cabinet Resolution clarifies that the ad-hoc courts will have the jurisdiction to hear civil, real estate, commercial and inheritance cases, and such disputes that the parties agree will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ad-hoc courts. Where there is such an agreement, other courts should decline jurisdiction, provided that the defendant in the matter asserts a jurisdictional objection before addressing the court on the merits of the dispute (i.e. similar to the position when asserting a jurisdictional objection based on the existence of an arbitration agreement). Each ad-hoc court will have a ‘preparation judge’ who shall exercise the powers of supervising judge and case manager. The ‘preparation judge’ is required to encourage settlement of disputes, and if a settlement is reached, the minutes of settlement shall acquire the status of a writ of execution. If settlement is not possible, the ‘preparation judge’ must, within 30 days, prepare a memorandum of opinion considering the parties’ position and the applicable law, and the matter will be referred to the competent court for adjudication in the ordinary manner. ■