United Arab Emirates: Reasoned Awards And Expert Opinions As A Possible Prevention To Article 257 Being Triggered

It is fair to say that last year's revision of Article 257 of the Penal Code has sent ripples throughout the arbitration community that are still felt, seven months later.

It was not long before visions of arbitrators and experts being locked behind bars for some alleged lack of impartiality flooded the UAE arbitration community, with many fearing the end this mode of dispute resolution in the UAE as we know it.

Others offered a more optimistic approach, of there being not much to worry about, suggesting that, surely, the actual jailing of arbitrators or experts requires far too many loops for a 'bad loser' of a party to jump over, before its guerilla tactics materialise.

However, both the optimists and the pessimists appear to have joined forces in trying to lobby for the repealing of Article 257 or perhaps its modification in a way that will help the arbitration community accept it in its day to day practice.

Whilst many have pondered over what lies ahead, it may be helpful to take a step back and consider what may have caused the change in legislation.

This could assist in working towards a limitation of the instances where the cause occurs, and hopefully of the instances where Article 257 bites.

Whilst it would be difficult to determine the exact train of thought that was followed by the legislator just before Article 257 was drafted, there is little doubt that some degree of indignation by the losing parties to arbitral proceedings must have been part of the force that fueled the change.

After all, if losing parties were to habitually exalt the fairness and even-handedness of tribunals' decisions, there would hardly be any reason for them to even suspect lack of impartiality, let alone contemplate its criminal prosecution.

Hence, it is arguable that there may have been an angry drive behind what is a very widely worded and far reaching penal law provision.

If this assumption is correct, one would have to ask what could have fueled the possible outrage. To do that, one would have to look at a typical arbitral award, the basic structure of which is generally as follows:

It starts off, as is normal, with the formal details of the parties and their representatives, together with some procedural background as to the tribunal's appointment, swiftly followed by a summary of the dispute, this usually being a verbatim replication of previous submissions.

If there are any jurisdictional or authority related matters, these are set out and possibly dealt with as preliminary issues.

There follows a list of what a tribunal understands to be the main issues in dispute.

Each issue is then dealt with, again by adopting a verbatim "copy and paste" approach of exactly what each party had to say, all taken from past pleadings.

After both parties' position on a given issue has been duly repeated, the tribunal opines as to which view it prefers and delivers its decision on that issue, often with very little analysis and very little reasoning preceding such decision.

Even if some reasoning is set out, this is almost always disproportionately limited in length and depth when compared with the preceding views of the parties.

The process is repeated for each issue and then the summary of the decisions is listed in the dispositive part.

Almost always the overwhelming bulk of a typical arbitral award in the UAE (and possibly beyond) consists of the parties' positions.

Only a very minor part of that voluminous award is original text of the tribunal's own assessment of what the parties have argued.

This is so, even though many institutional rules do dictate that the award must be reasoned, for example DIAC Rule 37.5, ADCCAC Rule 28.6. DIFC-LCIA Rule 26.2 and ICC Rule 32.2.

There is no definition of what constitutes reasoning, or reasons, and tribunals often take a rather minimalistic view.

They tend to hold, for example, that a tribunal has simply not been convinced that a given position applies over another or that a certain burden of proof has or has not been discharged.

Tribunals consider this as sufficient reasoning and promptly move on to uphold or reject an elaborately expressed position (concerning a head of claim of possibly tens of millions of dirhams), usually in the space of just a few lines.

It is true that arbitrators are generally very cautious not to stray beyond what has been pleaded, lest they touch upon a topic or a concept on which the parties have not had an opportunity to express their position.

Were a tribunal to introduce arguments in its reasoning that the parties see for the first time in the body of the award, this may lead to its nullification. Therefore, as far as reasoning is concerned, this is a potential limitation within the arbitral process.

Independent expert witnesses often reach conclusions within their reports based on experience and understanding of "best practice" where no evidence corroborating their findings actually exists.

A tribunal is then asked to accept the findings of one expert witness or another, simply because they profess to be an authority on a given specialised and usually highly technical matter.

At this stage, it is relevant to consider how the structure and contents of an award affects the readers, the first of whom are of course the parties.

As is common practice, the preferred way of reading an award is backwards.

That is to say, by starting from the dispositive part and if a disappointing item is listed therein, the reader then tends to try to find in the preceding text of the award why the tribunal reached that disappointing conclusion.

However, in doing so, the reader is unlikely to discover any illuminating thought process that could perhaps have a cathartic effect on any frustration caused.

Rather, what the reader usually finds, is that all the hard work and deep thought process, intricately crafted pleadings and eloquent writing, was summarily dismissed in just a few short paragraphs, which are in turn shrouded under a mysterious veil of undisclosed arbitral thought process.

It is perhaps easier to understand at that stage that, if this experience of unexplained rejection is repeated often enough, accusations of bias or even prejudice may start to proliferate.

It may be that some may have decided that the time has come to do something about this and it may be that their frustration eventually found its way to the listening ears of legislators.

It may be that their frustration eventually took the form of Article 257.

Or perhaps none of this is true or even likely.

The fact remains however, that investing more in reasoning is only going to help the arbitral process and appease the losing party.

It may in fact help both parties feel that the superior knowledge, wisdom and objective outlook of the arbitrators and experts (which are the presumptions upon which they were appointed in the first place) is, in fact, very helpful in strategising future dispute resolution.

The extent of reasoning must be limited to what has already been pleaded to avoid any risk of the award being nullified or set aside.

However, such risk would be limited and the need for a reasoned award may be satisfied, if the reworded arguments put forward by one party are compared with those of another and are set out in original text forming part of the tribunal's decision.

It would be difficult then to imagine a party wishing to trigger Article 257, because any public authority or prosecutor would have to first plough through the tribunal's thought process before the net decision is fully understood, let alone criticised for lacking impartiality.

A thoroughly reasoned decision (or opinion in the case of an independent expert) no matter how debatable such reasoning is, would be unlikely to be viewed as lacking impartiality.

By contrast, a decision in an award that comes across as cryptic, with laconic wording, or an expert opinion absolute in its determination and with minimal insight to its thought process, is more likely to raise suspicions.

And if suspicions are raised, then the arbitral community is left nervous and apprehensive, regardless of whether an Article 257 conviction is eventually confirmed, proven beyond reasonable doubt or not.

An award that is devoid of even a semblance of reasoning, may not necessarily be unjust but may lead to a sense of injustice.

A sense of injustice may lead to a desire to seek justice and this is now possible through the more arbitration-specific option afforded by Article 257.

It is common ground in a court judgment that comparatively less time and text is devoted to what the parties' positions are with the emphasis leaning more on reasoned analysis of arguments and of any authorities put forward.

One may argue that court judgments set out their reasoning in a far more detailed manner because they are liable to an appeal.

Hence, it is imperative that the appellant court is aware of the reasoning adopted by the lower court before it can properly either uphold or overturn its decision.

In addition, Judges are less limited by what authorities or principles they can invoke, whether those have been raised by the parties or not.

One may also argue that arbitral awards are not appealable and hence the need for extensive reasoning is not as intense.

However, given the alarming possibilities afforded by Article 257, it is likely that an arbitrator, if faced with its application, will in any event have to explain the reasoning behind an award at one stage or another, probably in front of a prosecutor and probably as part of a defence or a proclamation of innocence.

Rather than doing so after the event and for the sake of desperately trying to avoid a jail term, it may best to invest the time in advance and simply include such reasoning, even in limited form, as part of an award.

Awards could be drafted with that thought in mind, so that their reasoning appears transparent and having taken on board (as opposed to merely repeating) the parties' positions.

This would be a step in the right direction, regardless of whether the concerted efforts to repeal Article 257 succeed.

Aside from it serving as a potential method to avoid a jail sentence, basic reasoning would seem to be a natural ingredient of any award, simply because it is a key to a sense of justice being conveyed.

Ultimately, a sense of justice is what any party finding itself in an arbitral process expects to experience, whether it is victorious or not.

Originally published by Lexis Nexis.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions