Enforcing the first judgment from the English Courts in Dubai Courts

Everything you need to know about enforcing the first judgment from the local English courts on Emirati land, particularly in the Dubai courts.

For the first time in the United Arab Emirates, particularly in the Dubai Courts, a legal precedent has been set. The longstanding dispute, ongoing since 2021 before Emirati courts, has concluded. This pertains to the enforcement of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Justice, Division of the Royal Court of England and Wales. It’s noteworthy that this judgment is from a local English court, not an arbitration award—a departure from the usual practice of UAE courts in enforcing judgments from local English courts.

• To provide a comprehensive overview of the events, let’s go back to the starting point—the judgment was issued in presence in the original lawsuit on 08/02/2018 by the British High Court of Justice ruled as follows:

The court has issued the following rulings:

1. The defendants are obligated to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the claimant, totaling US $4,180,626.44 as of 4:00 pm on February 22, 2018.
2. The first defendant is obligated to compensate the claimant for the incurred damages, amounting to 55,479 US dollars. Additionally, the first defendant must pay an additional interest calculated at 11,411.16 US dollars, accruing from June 6, 2014, until the filing of this case on February 22, 2018, at 4:00 pm.
3. Accruing interest on the sums outlined in above mentioned Paragraphs 1 and 2. This interest will be calculated at a rate of 2% higher than the original rate from the date of this case until the completion of the payment process.
4. The defendants must cover all costs associated with this case, determined either through agreement or, if not agreed upon, assessed by a detailed report based on the coverage of the guarantee for the first defendant and based on standard costs for the second defendant.
5. The defendants are required to make an interim payment toward these costs to the claimant, totaling £350,993.20 by February 22, 2018.
6. The defendants are not permitted to file an appeal in this case.

• On July 23, 2018, the aforementioned judgment became final, explicitly stating that no appeal was allowed. However, the appellant sought permission to appeal against the judgment. The English Court of Appeal – Civil Section, denied this request.
• The opposing party persistently avoided complying with the judgment and took measures to conceal both himself and his assets to hinder enforcement.
• Our client discovered that the opposing party has residency in the UAE, particularly in Dubai.
• Our client approached Taylor Wessing LLP (Dubai Branch), which then collaborated with lawyer Tariq Al Shamsi of SAT Law Firm and Legal Consultations Office. They jointly engaged legal advisor Abdalla Eisa, along with Mr. Tariq Al Shamsi and Mr. Hossam Al Ghafari, to file a request for the enforcement of the foreign judgment. This was achieved by initiating Case No. 54/2021, an Order on Petition, and submitting the enforcement statement to the Dubai Court of First Instance, Urgent Matters Department. On 04/08/2021, the court issued a decision to place the enforcement statement on the foreign judgment.
• The issue surfaced when the opposing party raised objections during the enforcement of the decision, citing defects in the enforcement process under Article No. 85, as amended by Article No. 222 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code. This article requires the existence of the law from which the foreign judgment originates. In response, Legal Advisor Hesham El Samra adopted a novel approach, deviating from the traditional Emirati judicial system. He explored the possibility of leveraging a unique case where English courts enforced a final judgment from the Dubai courts. This precedent was established by the Supreme Court (Court of Queen’s Bench) in the United Kingdom on January 23, 2020, in the case Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri (2020) EWHC 75 (QB). Legal Advisor Hesham El-Samra requested this judgment from Taylor Wessing’s headquarters in the United Kingdom, particularly the London office, along with attestation and evidence of its actual enforcement and activation before the English enforcement authorities. This request was facilitated after obtaining clarification on UK laws from Taylor Wessing’s partner and head of the disputes department, Legal Advisor Nick Carnell. Coordination was maintained with Legal Counsel Abdalla Eisa and Legal Counsel Hussam Al-Ghafari, in the presence of lawyer Mr. Tariq Al-Shamsi. Subsequently, this evidence was presented before the UAE courts for the first time, (specifically the Dubai Court of Appeal in a session held on January 19, 2022.)
• The Commercial Court of Appeal in Dubai, in its judgment No. 188 of 2021 Commercial Execution Appeal, adopted the following stance: (As for the subject of the appeal in question, It was decided that, according to Article 85 of the Regulatory Regulations of the Civil Procedure Law, stating that it is permissible to enforce judgments and orders issued by a foreign country in the UAE under the same conditions stipulated in the law of the country the enforcement order will be issued by the enforcement judge based on the petition submitted to him, after verifying the following:
• The UAE courts are not exclusively competent in the dispute in which the judgment was issued, and the foreign courts are competent in it.
• The judgment or order was issued by a court under the law of the country in which it was issued and attested under the rules.
• The litigants in the case in which the foreign judgment was issued were summoned to appear and properly represented.
• The judgment or order had the force of res judicata under the law of the court that issued it, with the submission of a certificate that the ruling has acquired the force of res judicata or as stipulated in the judgment itself.
• The judgment does not conflict with a judgment or order previously issued by a court in the country and does not include anything that contravenes public order or morals therein.

Since it was established that, the judgment requested to be enforced was issued by the Supreme Court of Justice (Royal Council Division) in Britain, and it met the conditions stipulated in Article 85 of the regulations for its enforcement in the UAE, as the judgment had the force of res judicata, was issued by a competent court, and the UAE courts were not exclusively competent to hear the dispute in which the judgment was issued, the litigants were properly represented, and the judgment did not conflict with any UAE court judgment or order. Additionally, the judgment did not violate public order or morals, so an order can be issued to enforce the judgment. This does not prejudice the reasons stated by the appellant in his statement of appeal regarding the defect of the judgment and that it is not enforceable, as enforcing judgments does not require reciprocity. Moreover, the UK has not hesitated to enforce judgments from the UAE, provided they meet the necessary conditions and procedures for enforcement, Furthermore, the absence of the appellant (the convicted person) during the enforcement of the judgment in the UK, where the judgment originated, doesn’t render the judgment inherently unenforceable. Similarly, issuing a judgment against multiple individuals without specifying joint or several liability does not hinder the enforcement of the judgment against one individual. The enforcement is limited to the amount owed by that particular individual or the obligation directed specifically at them, excluding the others involved in the conviction, this circumstance is not regarded as a valid ground for non-enforcement. Given this, the appeal was submitted without a substantive foundation and is thus deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed, and the upheld decision stands based on the aforementioned reasons. (End of excerpt from the appellate judgment mentioned earlier)

• Naturally, both litigants did not accept the initial judgment, on our side, even though the opposing party registered the appeal after the specified date for announcements, which was in our favor, they did not agree to this appeal judgment. Consequently, both parties appealed this judgment before the Dubai Court of Cassation under case numbers 356 and 450 of 2022 Commercial.
• Following the registration of the two appeals mentioned earlier, a letter was issued on September 13, 2022, by Judge Abdul Rahman Murad Al Balushi, Director of the International Cooperation Department. The letter was addressed to Judge Tarish Eid Al Mansouri, Director of the Dubai Courts. The purpose of this letter was to confirm the information we had previously submitted, making the UAE courts aware of it. The letter stated the following (Referring to the above topic, and based on the bilateral agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, and the desire to strengthen fruitful cooperation in the legal and judicial field. It is evident, Your Excellency, that the bilateral agreement referred to above lacks a clause on the enforcement of foreign judgments and defers the mechanism of enforcing procedures to what is applicable in the national laws of the two countries. Article (85) of the regulatory regulations of the amended Civil Procedure Law for the year 2020 has stipulated the following:).
  • It is allowable to enforce judgments and orders issued in a foreign country in the UAE under the same conditions as specified in the laws of that country. The legislator does not necessitate the existence of a judicial cooperation agreement for the enforcement of foreign judgments. Enforcement can occur based on the principle of reciprocity. This principle is exemplified by English courts previously enforcing a judgment from the Dubai courts. This was done through a final judgment from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri (2020) EWHC 75 (QB) (Lenkor). This case serves as a judicial precedent and a binding principle for all English courts within their judicial system. Therefore, it is hoped that, in the case of requests to enforce judgments and orders issued by English courts, legal requirements will be observed under the laws of both countries. This aims to uphold the principle of reciprocity initiated and enforced by the English courts, ensuring its continuity between English courts and state courts.) End quote from the letter.
• Despite the information provided, the Dubai Court of Cassation, in its session on December 7, 2022, ruled on the two appeals (356 & 450/2022), overturning the previous judgment to discuss certain clarifications regarding the enforcement of judgments issued by foreign courts, particularly the English-foreign local courts. Additionally, the court emphasized the need to consider the statute of limitations for the opponent’s appeal. The judgment from the Dubai Court of Cassation included the following points in its reasoning:

First: Appeal 356-2022 Commercial. The appellant asserts in this appeal against the appealed judgment that it violates the law, contains errors in its application, lacks proper justification, has flawed reasoning, and infringes upon the right to defense. The appellant argues that the judgment erred in ruling that reciprocity is not a necessary condition for enforcing a foreign judgment. Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Law mandates reciprocity for the enforcement of judgments and orders from a foreign country, as indicated by the phrase “on the same conditions stipulated in the law of that country for the enforcement of judgments and orders issued in the UAE.” The appealed judgment also made an error by not adhering to the condition that the party seeking to enforce a foreign judgment must provide the law outlining the conditions for its enforcement in the country where the judgment was issued, as stipulated in Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Law. The documents lack evidence that the appellant complied with the conditions specified by United Kingdom law for enforcing judgments in the UAE. Consequently, the judgment in question may not be enforced in the UAE. Additionally, the appealed judgment violated Clause (e) of Paragraph (2) of the same Article 85, which states that foreign judgments can only be enforced after confirming they do not violate public order or morals in the country. The appealed judgment was flawed, lacking proper justification, and violated the right to defense by not addressing the appellant’s argument about the foreign judgment violating a principle of public order in the state. The appellant contended that combining two compensations is impermissible, as the foreign judgment, the subject of the order on petition, included compensation and interest under Clause No. (2) and additional interest in Clause No. (3). This combination goes against the public order in the UAE, where multiple compensations and interests are not allowed. The appellant presented this argument to the Court of Appeal, but it went unanswered. Additionally, the appealed judgment failed to address the appellant’s argument of the order’s invalidity due to the lack of awareness of the enforcement statement to which it was granted enforcement statement. As upon reviewing the translation of the foreign judgment, on which the order on petition, and enforcement statement, was based, it is evident that it contained unreadable clauses—specifically, Clauses Nos. (4, 5, 6) on page No. (2) of the judgment, which the appealed judgment neglected to thoroughly examine, investigate, and respond to. Furthermore, upon reviewing the same foreign judgment, it is evident that it imposed obligations on all defendants without specifying whether they are jointly or severally liable. This raises questions about the enforceability of the judgment in line with the applicable law in the case, especially considering the appellant’s failure to present the law applied to the case in which the judgment was issued. Additionally, examining Clause No. (5) of the foreign judgment in question within the appellant’s order on petition reveals an obligation to make a temporary payment of the case’s costs without providing evidence of whether it has been paid or not. This lack of evidence complicates the determination of the exact and precise amounts to be enforced. If the appealed judgment contradicts this perspective, it is flawed in a manner that warrants overturning. Second: Appeal 450-2022 commercial. The appellant contends in this appeal against the appealed judgment that it violates the law, involves errors in its application, lacks proper causation, is marred by flawed reasoning, and infringes upon the right of defense, this is because it accepted Appeal No. 23 of 2021 Order on Petition, Commercial, despite the appellant’s insistence before the Court of Appeal that the appellant has no right to file this appeal as it was submitted after the deadline. The documents confirm that the appellant was notified of the enforcement instrument – related to the decision to place the enforcement order on Order on Petition No. 54-2021, an enforcement statement, in Execution File No. 6654 of 2021 Commercial – through phone text messages on 23/09/2021. However, the defendant filed the appeal on 21/12/2021, indicating that the appeal was submitted after the deadline, according to the appealed judgment, it was necessary to dismiss the appeal for filing it after the deadline, and if the appealed judgment violates this consideration, and neglects to respond to that fundamental argument, then the judgment is flawed in a way that requires it to be overturned. Whereas the provisions of Articles (5), (6) and (8) of the regulatory regulations of the Civil Procedure Law issued by Council of Ministers Resolution No. 57 of 2018 and its amendments, and what happened in this court’s judgment, is that it is permissible to notify the notified party via recorded or video calls or text messages, by telephone, on a mobile phone, e-mail, fax, or any modern technical means that replace them, or by any other method agreed upon by both parties. The announcement shall be effective from the date of arrival of the fax and from the date of sending the e-mail or telephone text messages or verifying the audio or video recorded call, provided that, the announcement must include a copy of the statement of claim as a necessary procedure for convening the dispute in the lawsuit to achieve the principle of confrontation between opponents. In the court’s legal practice, it is recognized that while evaluating the effectiveness of modern means of communication for notifications is a factual matter within the independent determination of the trial court, such a court must ground its decision on justified reasons supported by evidence in the documents, leading to the reached conclusion. It is further affirmed in the court’s ruling that when the trial court is tasked with resolving an ongoing dispute between the involved parties, its judgment should assure the informed party that it has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence presented and considered all essential defense elements raised by the opposing parties. If any valid elements exist that could alter the case’s perspective, they should be considered. If it fails to do so, its judgment will be flawed due to insufficiency. In this instance, the appellant in the latest appeal insisted before the Court of Appeal on a defense outlined in the argument that, if proven true, could alter the case’s perspective. However, the appealed judgment deviated from this defense and failed to address it, resulting in a flawed judgment due to insufficient justification and a violation of the right to defense, necessitating its annulment, along with a referral. In appeal No. 450 of 2022 Commercial, this court decided to overturn the appealed judgment and sent it back to the Court of Appeal for a new decision. The judgment in Appeal No. 356 of 2022 Commercial, which is related to the appealed judgment in Appeal No. 450 of 2022, hinges on the trial court’s decision in the latter. This necessitates the appealed judgment in Appeal No. 356 of 2022 Commercial to be overturned as well. Due to these reasons, the court in Appeal No. 356 and 450 of 2022 Commercial has decided to overturn the judgment issued in Appeal No. 23 of 2021 Order on Petition, Commercial. The case is referred back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration by a different panel of judges. The appellant in each appeal is required to cover the expenses, with an offset against the attorney’s fees. (End of quotation from the judgment issued in the two appeals, 356 and 450 of 2022 Commercial.)

• After the case was sent back, we presented a detailed explanation during the hearing held on January 11, 2023, outlining the opponent’s error in initially filing the appeal after the deadline had expired. We also addressed all the questions raised by the decision to overturn, and the final decision was issued during the hearing on April 26, 2023. (The court made the following rulings:

(Firstly, on Appeal No. 23 of 2021 Order on Petition, Commercial, the right to appeal is forfeited. Secondly, Appeal No. 188 of 2021 Commercial Execution is not accepted. The appellant is obliged to cover the expenses of both appeals and an amount of two thousand dirhams for attorney’s fees, with the confiscation of the insurance amount in the first appeal.)

• Following the above, the opposing party appealed this judgment to the Dubai Court of Cassation under Commercial Appeal No. 847/2023. The court, in its decision issued on November 7 in the consultation room, (ordered not to accept the appeal and obliged the appellant to cover the expenses and an amount of two thousand dirhams for attorney’s fees, with the forfeiture of insurance.)

• Hence, it is important to highlight that, even though this marks the first judgment to enforce a judgment from a local English court with a final and non-appealable judgment, and it holds significance as evidence for enforcing other judgments, the principle of reciprocity applies only to a letter of instruction from the Department of International Cooperation to the Dubai Courts. This letter, reflecting the judgment considered by Legal Advisor/ Hesham El Samra, has been officially recorded and presented to the local Emirati courts for the first time. The aforementioned letter was issued as a consequence, and the appeal judgment issued under No. 188 of the 2021 Commercial Execution Appeal confirmed that, in conclusion, it must be clarified that the final judgment enforced under the execution number (6654/2021 Commercial Execution) is a judgment issued by an English local court and not an arbitration award. Thus, it is considered the first judicial precedent of its kind in this context, even if the reason for enforcing the judgment is based on reciprocity. Ultimately, the matter is the enforcement of a foreign judgment from local English courts, which must be emphasized for lack of ambiguity.

This blog post was written by Legal Advisor Hesham El-Samra.