Bi-monthly report based on practical experience of our team of
advocates in the courts of the UAE. This month, Michael Dark and
Mahmoud Awad discuss the implications of foreign law and
arbitration clauses in distribution or agency agreements.
With Dubai's growing economy, many international brands are
looking to enter the Dubai market through an exclusive distributor
or agent. Because of ignorance or uncertainty about UAE law, the
principal may try to insist on the insertion of clauses that make
the distribution or agency agreement (hereinafter referred to as
"Distribution Agreement") subject to foreign law and
However, in circumstances where a dispute arises, such clauses
can produce a significant amount of uncertainty.
Under UAE Law, a wholly Emirati owned entity can register a
Distribution Agreement with the relevant authorities and obtain
protection under the provisions of the UAE Agency Law, Federal Law
No. 18 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "UAE Agency
In addition to other safeguards, the UAE Agency Law requires
that "any disputes arising from a commercial agency registered
with the Ministry" must first be heard before the Agency
The Agency Committee is made up of appointees by various UAE
This means that if a Distribution Agreement is registered with
the relevant authorities, the Agency Committee will have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear any dispute and will only apply UAE legal
principles irrespective of any foreign law or jurisdiction
The UAE Agency Law allows either party to challenge the Agency
Committee's decision "within thirty (30) days following
the date on which the [Agency] Committee's decision is
notified, otherwise the [Agency] Committee's decision shall be
deemed final and not subject to challenge."
However, it is important to note that any challenge to the
Agency Committee's decision must be made before the "Dubai
Courts," again irrespective of any foreign law or arbitration
As such, an increasing number of principals are finding
themselves in a difficult situation in which they have relied on an
arbitration agreement or foreign law only to find themselves
subject to UAE law and courts.
Please note that if the agent or distributor is not wholly
Emirate owned then an arbitration clause may be effective.
In view of the possible implications, it would be prudent for
principals and distributors to seek legal advice prior to entering
into any distribution agreement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Brussels I Regulation provides a harmonised approach to determining which EU Member State court should have jurisdiction over a dispute and how judgments from courts in one EU Member State should be recognised and enforced in other EU Member States.
In VTB v Universal Telecom Investment Strategies Fund SPC  2 CILR 94, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal confirmed the availability of "free-standing" freezing injunctions in support of foreign legal proceedings, including against Cayman Islands entities against which no wrong doing is alleged.
The recent decision of the Cayman Islands Grand Court in RMF Market Neutral Strategies (Master) Limited v DD Growth Premium 2X Fund (unreported, 17 November 2014) is a further reminder of the serious challenges associated with bringing clawback actions against "innocent" third party fund investors who have received redemption proceeds from a Cayman Islands fund in the period leading up to the fund's collapse.
On 26 November 2014 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the "Privy Council") handed down its judgment in the appeal brought by Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds ("Shell") against the joint liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Ltd ("Fairfield Sentry") (the "Liquidators"), the largest feeder fund to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").
A defendant who is engaged in litigation, but feels the claimant may be unable to satisfy any costs order made against him may, in certain circumstances, apply to the court for an order for security for costs.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”