Recognition Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral

Discuss About The Recognition Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral?

The heart of the disagreement was whether or not a UAE real estate developer known as Meydan Group had authentically dismissed an agreement in which Banyan Tree, an associate hotel operator in Singapore, was intended to run a hotel put up by Meydan Group. A settlement clause in the deal offered referral of disagreements to the DIAC. The settlement verdict favored Banyan Tree, founded on the illegal dissolution of the agreement. Nonetheless, Meydan Group did not compensate the hotel operator as agreed, resulting in an application to the DIFC Court by Banyan Tree so as the arbitral award would be acknowledged and enforced. Meydan Group responded by submitting an application that challenged the judgment passed by the DIFC courts.

According to the Articles 42 and 43 of the DIFC Arbitration law No. 1 of 2008, the DIFC courts have the power to identify and impose any arbitral award regardless of where it comes from. This is also applicable in cases where the parties involved have no connection to the DIFC (Blanke & Corm-Bakhos, 2014). The law for that reason spurs the DIFC courts by allowing its judges to diagnose and put into effect any arbitral award, irrespective of the seat. Furthermore, Article 7(3) of the DIFC Arbitration law gives any Emirate a go-ahead to issue regulation essential for the conduct of its undertakings (Padley & Clutterham, 2016).

Application

There exist some outstanding fear that in a follow-on prosecution action, it is possible for the Dubai Courts to depend on a public policy dispute to decline execution of a DIFC approved the award. This argument does not hold any merit since according to Article 7(3) (c) of the amended Judicial Authority Law, such an argument should not be awarded a public policy exemption (de Moura, 2015). It is therefore debatable that if the Dubai Courts had to depend on a public policy disagreement to decline implementation of a DIFC sanctioned award, it would imply that they have dishonored their commitments as articulated in Article 7(3) (c). Moreover, it is disputable that the revised Judicial Authority Law fails to offer a public policy exemption specifically for the reason that if it did, this would be a desecration of the rule of mutual confidence and acknowledgment of judgments, verdicts, and commands. It is worth noting that the Judicial Authority Law clearly restricted any ground for an alternative by the Dubai as well as DIFC Courts as a result of public policy.  Thus inclining to a regime built on what can be referred to as mutual trust as well as recognition in the execution of rulings, resolutions, and commands arising from any other parallel court (Aljasmi, 2016).

Conclusion

The UAE public code should ensure that there is ratification of any award provided in UAE by the UAE courts prior to its enforcement. This is because failure to do so will lead to a prolonged and vexing process for the applicant, and as a result, there is a possibility that a domineering judge might give merit to the original decision. This would not be a favorable situation for any appellant, due to the fact that the party has already completed the court process and emerged victorious to what they presumed to be an absolute decision. To sum up, the petitioners in the Banyan Tree case may have been involved in a policy to by-pass the possibly provocative endorsement course in the Dubai courts.

References:

Aljasmi, M. A. (2016). Challenging International Arbitration Awards in UAE Courts on Public Policy Ground (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai (BUiD)).

Blanke, G., & Corm-Bakhos, S. (2014). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the UAE: Practice and Procedure. BCDR International Arbitration Review, 1(1), 3-27.

De Moura, K. Z. I. (2015). Critical analysis of the UAE Courts' reaction upon accession to the New York Convention (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai (BUiD)).

Padley, M., & Clutterham, C. (2016). Common Pitfalls of Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates: Interference and Enforcement. Journal of International Arbitration, 33(1), 83-98.