Middle East courts are taking a more defined approach to arbitration
In the midst of increasing international investments and commercial transactions in the Middle East, arbitration remains a key component for the resolution of complex commercial disputes. Its effectiveness, however, depends not only on arbitral tribunals, but also on how national courts define their roles in oversight and enforcement.
Recent trends in the Middle East have shown a more disciplined judicial approach with a clearer delineation of roles between courts and arbitral tribunals.
Enforcement: a narrower approach
Enforcement of foreign awards has been a key area of development.
In the UAE, the Committee for the Unification of Federal and Local Judicial Principles ruled in Petition No. 1 of 2025 that an award shall be valid and enforceable provided the arbitrators sign only the final page. Referring to earlier Dubai Court of Cassation decisions 1, the Committee noted that procedural rules should not be used to defeat substantive rights and that legal procedures are meant to serve justice, not to create technical barriers.
The Dubai Court of Cassation adopted the same approach, confirming that arbitrators are not required to sign every page of the award and that issues already examined during arbitration, including signatory capacity, cannot be reopened at the enforcement stage 2.
A similar emphasis on clarity can be seen in Saudi Arabia, where the Arbitration Law is currently under review, with the aim of modernising the legislative framework and enhancing predictability. The draft reform includes clearer provisions regarding court–tribunal interaction, permits courts to stay annulment proceedings or enforcement challenges for up to 60 days to enable tribunals to cure defects, and confirms that partial and interim awards have the authority of a final judgment and are directly enforceable.
The ADGM and Dubai Courts have also introduced a system of reciprocal enforcement of ratified arbitral awards without the need to re-examine the underlying award.
These developments therefore suggest a narrower approach and a reduced scope for expansive review at the enforcement stage.
Recent trends have shown a more disciplined judicial approach with a clearer delineation of roles between courts and arbitral tribunals
Judicial intervention: limits of review
Courts have also refined the scope of annulment and supervisory review.
The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation clarified that annulment is not an appeal on the merits. Courts may not reweigh evidence or revisit a tribunal’s interpretation of the law. The grounds of annulment remain limited to the statutory grounds set out in the Federal Arbitration Law 3.
Egyptian courts likewise limit grounds for annulment to exhaustively listed statutory grounds, excluding reassessment of the merits.
In the wider regional landscape, Morocco’s arbitration reform demonstrates a similar trajectory. The updated framework modernises the regime and clarifies the supportive role of domestic courts, reinforcing a structured balance between oversight and arbitral autonomy.
Across these jurisdictions, review powers are increasingly exercised within defined legal parameters rather than through re-examination of arbitral reasoning.
Public policy: a limited exception
Public policy continues to be a ground for refusing enforcement, but recent decisions suggest it is applied with greater restraint. For instance, in the UAE, the imposition of compound interest is not considered to be in contravention of public policy. 4 At the DIFC level, the Court specified that the refusal on public policy grounds is subject to a high standard and is only justified where enforcement would “violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice”. 5
Saudi Arabia recognises sharia compliance and public policy as potential grounds for refusal. While rooted in the foundations of its legal system, they operate within defined statutory boundaries.
Public policy therefore functions as a defined safeguard rather than a vehicle for broad review.
Implications for cross-border activity
Where enforcement review is confined to the grounds set out in the New York Convention and annulment remains limited to statutory bases, the interaction between tribunals and courts becomes more predictable. In disputes involving assets across multiple states, this delineation contributes to greater certainty at the post-award stage.
The complementary role of the ICC
Institutional practice operates alongside these developments.
The ICC Court and its Secretariat ensure proceedings are conducted with care, independence, impartiality and integrity, in strict compliance with the Court’s obligations and duties under its rules. In doing so, the Court and the Secretariat monitor cases to safeguard due process and procedural fairness.
One of the distinctive features of ICC arbitration and a cornerstone of the Rules is the Court’s scrutiny of all draft awards. Such a process serves to enhance the quality of the award, improve its general accuracy and persuasiveness; and maximise its legal effectiveness by identifying any defects that could be used in an attempt to have it set aside at the place of arbitration or resist its enforcement elsewhere.
In complex, multi-contract and multi-jurisdictional disputes, this scrutiny plays an important role in safeguarding enforceability across different jurisdictions.
As courts continue to define the limits of intervention, institutional discipline and judicial oversight increasingly operate side by side, reinforcing confidence in arbitration across the Middle East.
1. Dubai Court of Cassation – Cases No. 109/2022 and No. 403/2020 2. Dubai Court of Cassation – Appeals Nos. 778 and 887 of 2025 3. Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation – Cases Nos. 1115/2024 and No. 166/2024 4. Dubai Court of Cassation – Appeals Nos. 778 and 887 of 2025 5. DIFC Court of Appeal’s decision dated 9 January 2025
About the author
Laetitia Rabbat is deputy counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, Abu Dhabi
