In a more recent development to support the enforcement of DIFC courts in foreign jurisdictions, the DIFC Court issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2015 on the referral of payment judgment disputes to arbitration (“Practice Direction”), which provides for a procedure in which the parties can contractually agree that the financial judgment of the DIFC tribunal that does not partially or completely execute could be converted into an arbitral award. and use simplified enforcement procedures provided for in a number of treaties and protocols such as the New York Convention. The implementation of this practice has not yet been tested and is subject to compliance with a number of the requirements set out therein. The guarantors appealed the court`s finding that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the substantive claims against the guarantors, including a WFO`s claim. The decision on the law applicable to the contract is an agreement in the contract in which the parties assign the right of a particular jurisdiction to supervise and settle disputes that merge between the parties. The parties emphasize or stipulate that all claims arising from the contract are governed by the law of any relevant jurisdiction. This decision generally becomes binding on the parties when they refer the case to arbitration. In principle, the choice of an applicable foreign law is permitted.

This choice will be confirmed by the courts of the United Arab Emirates, provided that the provisions of foreign law do not conflict with the Islamic Sharia, public order or morality of the United Arab Emirates and that the relationship does not revolve around a number of matters of public order, such as. B rights in rem, employment, registered commercial representation and contracts concluded with government agencies of the United Arab Emirates. Domestic public order, as interpreted in the United Arab Emirates, is very broad and includes, inter alia, issues of personal status, commercial freedom, movement of goods and rules of individual property, provided that these issues do not violate the mandatory provisions and essential principles of islamic Sharia. Quebec is a civil jurisdiction that also plans to take out a guarantee through a mortgage on real estate (or real estate) and personal (or movable) property. Upon receipt of the OMA`s notification, the guarantors challenged the court`s jurisdiction and requested a statement that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the action in favour of a WFO. The motion was heard by Justice Martin. While theoretically the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the mainland in Dubai is only feasible by the courts of the United Arab Emirates, the DIFC courts have expanded their scope in a significant development and, in some cases, the jurisdiction to ratify foreign arbitral awards for enforcement on the mainland in Dubai without geographical reference to the DIFC on the basis of the mutual recognition regime between the Emirate of Dubai and the DIFC courts. A law envisaged in any commercial contract defines the law that governs or governs the contract in the event of a dispute, but the jurisdiction clause determines which courts or international institutions have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case or settle disputes. However, these clauses are just as important as those of the trade agreements between the parties; They are still neglected in the preparation of the general conditions and are considered standard boilerplates at the end of the contract. Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited has applied to the DiFC Court of First Instance for a Global Freezing Order (WFO). The action was heard unilaterally and dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited filed an ex parte appeal with the DIFC Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge should have decided that there was a good contentious case that the court had jurisdiction and that, on that basis, he should have made the WFO, leaving it to the guarantors to challenge the court`s jurisdiction after the order had been served on him. The applicable law was the laws of the Emirate of Dubai and the applicable federal laws of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The parties have agreed in accordance with clause 17.1 of the Warranty Agreements: “The courts of Dubai shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising out of this Warranty.” Another most common uncertain clause is the determination of jurisdiction, where the words “may” and “should” can create undesirable confusion. It is important to note that if parties who wish to have non-exclusive jurisdiction, the word “may” may be used, on the contrary, for exclusive jurisdiction, the word “should” should be used. An ideal jurisdiction clause states that “the parties shall submit their dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement in question to the (court/arbitration) of that country”. It is essential that these conditions become as important as the substantive provisions of the agreement. Failure by the parties to agree on the applicable law may result in costly and massive lawsuits that will decide the relevant law and jurisdiction applicable to the agreement. Corporate Lawyers of Dubai assists many multi-billion dollar companies with tailor-made commercial contracts before entering into an agreement that meets the requirements of both parties.

Given that cross-border transactions occur constantly, a relevant issue of the term “choice of law” in private international law applicable to international trade agreements is of considerable importance. Contracts are only pieces of paper without legitimate effects, unless there is a specific reference to a private right that characterizes the obligations expected by the parties to the agreement and recommends the way of redress by the appropriate judicial system in the event of non-performance of contractual obligations. A simple examination of the standard jurisdiction clause above, we find that the first step is to determine which institution is empowered to settle the dispute, which are either courts or arbitration institutions. The system has its advantages and disadvantages, so the parties should determine in advance what should be appropriate for the said issue. He certainly felt that arbitration offers a variety of options and advantages over the courts, which are described as follows: What are the risks associated with choosing a foreign law to regulate a contract on the UAE mainland? The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the jurisdiction clause of the parties constituted a valid agreement to choose the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts under Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL. This case once again underlines the importance of clear and precise wording. If the parties intend to include or exclude the jurisdiction of the DIFC court, explicit language should be used to avoid ambiguity and reduce the risk of jurisdictional disputes. The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has experienced decades of economic growth and has become a leading regional trading hub, attracting many important cross-border transactions. This has led investors and parties to contracts in the UAE to jointly choose foreign law, particularly English law, to govern the contractual relationship and to opt for foreign jurisdiction or arbitration as an alternative to the dispute.

A look at the uae`s legal framework, a civil jurisdiction with a strong presence of financially free areas on the common law model, is of paramount importance, and we are pleased to be able to offer a simple but comprehensive guide to help you understand the main features of choice of law, litigation and arbitration in the UAE. .