In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Appeal No 657 of 2025</span>, the Dubai Court of Cassation overturned a decision by the Dubai Court of Appeal (“<span class="news-text_medium">COA</span>”) which ruled that an anti-suit injunction (“<span class="news-text_medium">ASI</span>”) issued by an arbitral tribunal was invalid. The case stemmed from a UAE-seated ICC arbitration where the tribunal had issued an ASI to prevent a party (“<span class="news-text_medium">A Co</span>”) from pursuing parallel court proceedings in relation to a dispute over a Memorandum of Understanding that included an arbitration clause.
A Co challenged the tribunal’s interim order before the COA, arguing that it was in conflict with UAE public policy and violated its constitutional and statutory right to access justice through the courts. Additionally, A Co contended that an ASI was not a permitted interim measure under article 21 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">UAE Federal Arbitration Law</span>.
On 28 April 2025, the COA annulled the ASI and ordered the opposing party (“<span class="news-text_medium">B Co</span>”) to pay costs. In response, B Co appealed the decision to the Dubai Court of Cassation, arguing that under article 21 of the FAL, arbitral tribunals have exclusive authority to issue interim measures, including ASIs, and to modify or revoke them. B Co also highlighted that A Co had not requested the tribunal to amend or revoke the ASI but had instead approached the COA directly.
The Court of Cassation allowed the appeal, reinstating the tribunal’s ASI. It clarified that, under article 21, only the tribunal has the authority to issue, amend, suspend or cancel interim measures during arbitration proceedings. The Court of Cassation determined that the COA had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a matter that was within the exclusive domain of the tribunal. As a result, the Court of Cassation set aside the COA’s judgment and dismissed A Co’s original application to set aside the ASI.
This decision underscores the Court of Cassation’s commitment to respecting the arbitral tribunal’s discretion in managing arbitration procedures, including the issuance of interim orders and its role in ensuring compliance with arbitration agreements.
