The Dubai Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal filed by a commercial company against an arbitration award issued by the Dubai Court of Appeal in a commercial dispute with the Ministry of Energy and Water. The company’s appeal was based on several grounds:

Firstly, it claimed that the arbitration award was issued after the expiration of the arbitration period stipulated in the law without its consent to extend it. Secondly, it argued that the arbitrator did not adhere to the rules of legal representation during the arbitration proceedings by overlooking the absence of a valid power of attorney from the Ministry’s representative during the proceedings. Thirdly, it stated that the arbitrator’s decisions contradicted his decisions in a previous lawsuit.

However, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, relying on legal principles stating that the grounds for invalidating an arbitration award are exhaustively listed in the law, and that the parties’ agreement on the possibility of extending the arbitration period confirms the validity of the ruling’s issuance period. The court also emphasized that the issue of the Ministry representative’s power of attorney falls within the court’s discretionary authority and that the company is at fault for failing to verify the validity of the Ministry representative’s power of attorney during the arbitration proceedings.

The Court of Cassation emphasized that the issue of contradiction in the arbitrator’s decisions is not a ground for appeal and that the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the evidence in the case.

The court also indicated that the company failed to prove any defect in the arbitration proceedings or in the arbitrator’s authority to extend the ruling issuance period. The court also stressed that the company did not raise the issue of the Ministry representative’s power of attorney before the Court of Appeal in the arbitration lawsuit and that raising this issue as a new ground before the Court of Cassation is inadmissible.

Based on these principles, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and ordered the company to pay the case expenses and forfeit the security deposit.