Observations Concerning the UAE Arbitration Law: Between Annulment Action and Challenges to Enforcement Orders

1. Introduction

One of our clients was recently involved in a dispute that raised a fundamental procedural question under UAE arbitration law: can a party obtain two conflicting judicial outcomes in respect of the same arbitral award, one through an annulment action and another through a challenge to an enforcement order?

Specifically, the matter concerned (i) an action to annul an arbitral award and (ii) a challenge (Grievance) to a court order confirming and enforcing that same award. The interaction between these two tracks revealed an interesting angle in the UAE’s arbitration framework being Federal Decree-Law No. 15 of 2023 on Arbitration (the “Arbitration Law”), which amended Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2018.

This article explores the following topics:

1. It sets out the statutory grounds and time limits for seeking annulment of an arbitral award under Article 53 of the Arbitration Law.

2. It explains the process for confirming and enforcing an arbitral award under Articles 55 and 57, including the right to challenge an enforcement order.

3. It examines the interplay between Articles 53 and 57 which, in practice, can allow parallel proceedings, inconsistent rulings, and uncertainty in enforcement.

In doing so, we conclude with a real case study from our recent work, illustrating how this gap played out in practice and why legislative clarification is now urgently required.

2. Grounds for Annulment of an Arbitral Award under Article 53.

Article 53(1) of the Arbitration Law provides an exhaustive and narrowly defined list of grounds on which a party may seek to annul (set aside) an arbitral award. The party seeking annulment bears the burden of proving at least one of these grounds, which generally fall into five categories:

• Defects in the arbitration agreement (e.g. invalidity or inapplicability of the clause);

• Lack of capacity or legal standing of one of the parties;

• Due process violations (procedural unfairness or denial of the right to be heard);

• Incorrect constitution of the arbitral tribunal (irregular appointment or improper composition); and

• Lack of jurisdiction (the tribunal decided issues beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement).

Crucially, the law imposes a strict deadline: an annulment action must be filed within 30 days from the date on which the award was served on the party.

The policy choice is clear. The legislature intends for arbitral awards in the UAE to be final and enforceable, and for annulment to remain exceptional — limited to serious defects that go to fairness, due process, or jurisdiction.

3.Confirmation and Enforcement of an Arbitral Award under Article 55.

Article 55(2) of the Arbitration Law gives the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitral award and order its enforcement. The court is directed to rule on an application for confirmation and enforcement within 60 days from filing, unless recognised grounds for annulment exist.

In other words, the default position under the UAE regime is pro-enforcement and time-bound. The courts are instructed to move quickly and treat arbitral awards as enforceable instruments, consistent with international arbitration standards.

4. The Right to Challenge an Enforcement Order under Article 57.

Article 57 of the Arbitration Law opens an additional procedural avenue: either party may submit a challenge to the Court of Appeal against:

• an order confirming the arbitral award and declaring it enforceable; or

• an order refusing to enforce the award.

What is striking is this: Article 57 does not expressly confine the scope of that challenge to certain grounds. Nor does it clearly impose a defined time bar aligned with the 30-day limitation period for annulment actions.

In practice, this creates a broad and potentially open-ended right to challenge an enforcement order. As we explain below that breadth lies at the heart of the legislative gap.

5. The Legislative Gap: Tension Between Articles 53 and 57.

This is where the problem emerges.

On one hand, Article 53 strictly limits annulment actions:

• it narrowly defines the grounds on which an arbitral award can be set aside;

• it imposes a hard 30-day deadline;

• it is designed to protect the finality and autonomy of arbitration.

On the other hand, Article 57 appears to allow a party to challenge the court’s enforcement order even after that 30-day annulment window has closed — and without clearly limiting which arguments can be raised.

In practice, that creates several risks:

1.     A procedural workaround.

A losing party may simply avoid (or miss) the 30-day annulment deadline under Article 53, and instead file a challenge under Article 57 against the enforcement order. In doing so, it can repackage what is, in substance, an annulment challenge as an “objection to enforcement.” This undermines the legislature’s intention that annulment be exceptional, time-limited, and legally ring-fenced.

2.     Recycling the same arguments twice.

A party may raise the very same objections regarding due process, tribunal jurisdiction, or procedural irregularities:

·        first, in an annulment action under Article 53 (within 30 days); and

·        again, in a challenge under Article 57 to the enforcement order.

This enables litigation of the same issues in two different procedural tracks.

3.     Absence of an express limitation period.

Where the Arbitration Law is strict about timing for annulment (30 days), it is comparatively silent on a strict and harmonised deadline for a challenge under Article 57. That gap creates space for prolonged, rolling objections to enforcement.

4.     Risk of inconsistent final judgments.

If courts entertain both tracks independently, it becomes entirely possible to end up with:

• a final judgment annulling (or refusing to enforce) an award, and

• a separate final judgment confirming and enforcing that same award.

That is not a hypothetical concern. It has already happened in practice.

This inconsistency is not just technical. It directly threatens core values of arbitration: finality, speed, procedural certainty, and commercial predictability. It also weakens confidence in the UAE as a jurisdiction that reliably supports enforcement of arbitral awards.

6. Case Study: How the Gap Operates in Practice

In a recent matter we studied, the consequences of this issue were felt in real time. An arbitral award was issued against a party, ordering payment of a specified sum. Annulment action was initiated, asserting both partial and total annulment grounds.

• The partial annulment arguments focused on deficiencies in reasoning and due process concerns.

• The total annulment request was based on jurisdictional and procedural excess: the arbitration clause expressly required the tribunal to issue its award within six months, extendable once for a further six months, and any further extension required both parties’ consent. The tribunal unilaterally extended beyond that without our client’s consent — acting beyond the temporal limits of its mandate.

  
  

While the annulment action was pending, the opposing party applied to the Court of Appeal for confirmation of the award and sought its enforcement. Enforcement steps commenced.

The first-instance court later ruled in our client’s favour and annulled the arbitral award in full.

The opposing party appealed. The Court of Cassation ultimately overturned (on procedural reasoning related to insufficiency of reasoning) and remitted the case back to the Court of Appeal for fresh consideration.

In parallel, and in an effort to preserve enforcement, the opposing party returned to the arbitral tribunal seeking a so-called “clarification” or “interpretation” of aspects of the award, and then obtained a revised form of wording. Armed with that, they again sought confirmation and enforcement before the Court of Appeal and brought that order to the execution judge.

At that point, a formal challenge (Grievance) to the enforcement order under Article 57 was registered, asserting the very same substantive objections we had raised in the annulment action — including ultra vires extension of the tribunal’s mandate and serious procedural violations.

The Court hearing the challenge considered the merits and again ruled that the arbitral award could not be enforced. That judgment was not appealed and therefore became final and binding.

Despite this, when the Court of Appeal later revisited the annulment action after remittal, it proceeded to confirm the arbitral award and rejected the annulment — effectively authorising enforcement. The result was a direct clash: two final outcomes existed at the same time in respect of the same award:

• one judgment refusing enforcement (following the Article 57 challenge); and

• one judgment confirming the award and allowing enforcement.

Our client then pursued further appellate relief on behalf of our client. Ultimately, a final ruling was issued cancelling the enforcement and confirming annulment of the award.

But the path to that outcome illustrates the structural risk that litigants may face:

• parallel proceedings,

• repetition of the same substantive objections in different procedural “wrappers,” and

• contradictory rulings from courts of competent jurisdiction.

  
  

7. Conclusion and Suggested Way Forward

The scenario above highlights an overlap in the UAE Arbitration Law, namely, the interaction between:

• Article 53, which strictly regulates annulment actions (limited grounds, 30-day deadline, finality-focused), and

• Article 57, which allows a challenge to an enforcement order with no clear limitations on timing or permissible grounds.

In its current form, this interaction can be used — deliberately or tactically — to bypass the strict annulment regime, to re-litigate identical issues through a different procedural route, and to create the risk of conflicting final judgments on the same arbitral award.

In our view, two clarifications would go a long way toward restoring certainty and reinforcing the UAE’s pro-arbitration posture:

1. Unified time limits.

The 30-day period that governs annulment actions under Article 53 should be expressly mirrored (or at least judicially read across) into Article 57 challenges. This would prevent the use of Article 57 as an “open-ended” alternative to timely annulment.

2. Binding effect of final annulment / refusal-to-enforce judgments.

Where a final, unappealable judgment (whether from an annulment action or from a challenge to an enforcement order) determines that an arbitral award is void or unenforceable, that judgment should be treated as conclusive and binding on any subsequent court asked to confirm or enforce the same award.

Until such clarification is provided — whether legislatively or through consistent higher court jurisprudence — parties and counsel should assume that both Article 53 (annulment action) and Article 57 (challenge to enforcement) may run in parallel and should plan their procedural strategy accordingly.

Rahma Elkhashab

Associate 

NHB LEGAL