Arbitration in the Middle East

Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Arbitration in UAE—Lexology Panoramic guide

A guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, provides an introduction to Arbitration in United Arab Emirates covering such topics as: arbitration agreements, constitution of arbitral tribunal, jurisdiction, arbitral proceedings, interim measures, awards, proceedings subsequent to issuance of award and update and trends. See Practice Note: Arbitration—United Arab Emirates—Q&A guide.

Challenging arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit injunctions in the UAE

Our Practice Note considers challenging arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit injunctions in the UAE. It considers challenging jurisdiction in the UAE courts and the courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). See Practice Note: Challenging arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit injunctions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Interim remedies and arbitration in the UAE

Our Practice Note considers interim, emergency relief or remedies (including injunctions) and arbitration in the UAE. It considers interim remedies available in the UAE courts (including preservatory attachment orders and travel bans and interim orders available in support of arbitration proceedings) and interim remedies available in the DIFC courts, as well as interim relief available from tribunals in arbitration proceedings

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents