What this guide covers
NYC Article V (implemented through FDL 6/2018 Art 57) provides an exhaustive list of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. UAE courts apply these grounds — and the burden of proof is on the party resisting enforcement. Understanding how UAE courts have applied each ground is essential for both enforcing awards and defending against enforcement.
Article V(1) grounds — party-invoked defences
Art V(1)(a) — Incapacity or invalid agreement: The arbitration agreement is invalid under the law of the parties or the law of the seat. UAE courts rarely sustain this ground — arbitration clauses in commercial contracts are presumed valid. A challenge under this ground requires demonstrating that the arbitration clause is void under the governing law, not merely that a different interpretation would favour the challenging party.
Art V(1)(b) — Due process / notice: The party against whom enforcement is sought was not given proper notice of the arbitration or was otherwise unable to present its case. This is the most commonly invoked ground in UAE enforcement proceedings. UAE courts have refused enforcement where: the respondent was served at an old address and had no actual notice; the tribunal decided issues not raised in the pleadings without giving the respondent opportunity to respond; the hearing was conducted without adequate time for the respondent to prepare evidence. However, courts distinguish genuine due process violations from deliberate non-participation — a party that was properly served but chose not to participate cannot subsequently claim due process denial.
Art V(1)(c) — Excess of jurisdiction: The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement. UAE courts apply this narrowly — an award exceeding the scope of the submission is a ground, but courts do not second-guess the tribunal's interpretation of the arbitration clause. The excess must be clear and material.
Art V(1)(d) — Composition/procedure: The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, the law of the seat. Tribunals constituted in violation of the agreed appointment procedure (e.g., sole arbitrator where the clause required three) can face enforcement challenges. Procedural irregularities that do not affect the outcome are generally insufficient.
Art V(1)(e) — Award not binding or set aside: The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country where it was made. An award under appeal in the country of origin is not necessarily suspended. The critical question is whether the award is "binding" — institutions' rules typically provide that awards are final and binding from the date of issue.
Article V(2) grounds — court-raised defences
Art V(2)(a) — Non-arbitrability: The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the enforcement country. UAE law restricts arbitrability for: criminal matters; personal status disputes; labour disputes (generally); real estate registration (RERA-exclusive matters); insolvency proceedings. Commercial disputes between corporate entities are generally arbitrable. The non-arbitrability ground is raised ex officio by the court — the party resisting enforcement does not need to invoke it.
Art V(2)(b) — Public policy: Recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the enforcement country. This is the most significant and unpredictable ground in UAE enforcement proceedings. UAE courts' application of public policy has evolved significantly since 2006 — the trend is towards a narrow, international public policy standard. Courts have refused enforcement on public policy grounds where: the award required performance of an illegal contract under UAE law; the award involved usurious interest exceeding the UAE court-approved rate; the award violated Islamic principles in matters touching personal status or inheritance. Courts have declined to apply public policy where: the award applied foreign law; the award was based on international commercial customs different from UAE domestic practice.
Burden of proof and UAE court approach
Under the NYC, the burden of proving an Art V ground is on the party resisting enforcement — not on the party seeking enforcement. This is a critical procedural advantage for award creditors: the default position is enforcement; refusal requires proof of a specific ground. UAE courts have progressively moved towards this standard, though historically some UAE court decisions placed a higher burden on the award creditor. The Federal Supreme Court's 2019–2023 jurisprudence has generally upheld the pro-enforcement stance, refusing to review the merits of awards and applying Art V grounds narrowly.
Practical checklist
- Anticipate Art V(1)(b) (due process): preserve evidence of all service attempts and responses from the tribunal — a tribunal record showing full procedural compliance is the best defence
- Public policy: UAE courts look at the substance of the award — ensure nothing in the award (award of interest, specific performance of a potentially regulated activity, etc.) engages UAE public policy concerns
- Award binding: confirm the award is final and binding under the applicable institutional rules — obtain written confirmation from the institution if required
- Non-arbitrability: confirm the subject matter is arbitrable under UAE law before commencing arbitration — real estate registration, employment, and criminal matters raise arbitrability questions
- Respond to objections promptly: once an Art V objection is filed in UAE courts, file a substantive response within the court's deadline — failure to respond may be treated as concession
- Appeal strategy: if enforcement is refused at first instance, the Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation review Art V grounds de novo — a first-instance refusal is not final
What we'd typically advise
The Art V(2)(b) public policy ground is the most litigated in UAE enforcement proceedings. UAE courts' interpretation of public policy has narrowed over the years, but parties should still ensure their arbitral awards do not contain elements that could trigger a public policy challenge — particularly excessive interest, penalties that look like usury, or performance obligations that are restricted under UAE law. If the award contains such elements, consider applying to the tribunal for clarification or partial enforcement of the uncontroversial portions.
Frequently asked questions
Can UAE courts review the merits of a foreign arbitral award under Art V?
No. NYC Art V grounds are exclusively procedural and substantive jurisdictional — courts cannot review whether the tribunal got the facts or the law right. Review of the merits is not a ground under Art V. If a UAE court purports to re-examine the merits, this is itself contrary to the UAE's obligations under the NYC and can be raised on appeal.
What constitutes "public policy" under UAE court practice?
UAE courts have applied public policy to refuse enforcement where awards conflict with mandatory provisions of UAE law (e.g., UAE competition law, RERA mandatory jurisdiction) or Islamic principles applicable to the subject matter. The trend is towards international public policy (applying only to fundamental principles) rather than domestic public policy (applying to all mandatory rules). Recent Federal Cassation decisions have adopted the international standard.
If an award has been partially set aside in the country of origin, can the remaining portion be enforced in the UAE?
Yes. Art V(1)(e) applies to set-aside of the whole award. Where only part of an award has been set aside, the remainder remains enforceable. Under FDL 6/2018 Art 57(3), the UAE court may enforce the award in part if the remaining enforceable portion can be separated.
Does an arbitration clause in a contract of adhesion constitute a valid agreement under Art V(1)(a)?
Arbitration clauses in standard form contracts are generally enforceable in UAE and international arbitration law. The party challenging the clause must show it did not consent — mere imbalance of bargaining power is insufficient. Consumer contracts may raise different considerations but commercial contracts between corporate entities are presumed enforceable.
Can the award creditor oppose an application to stay enforcement pending set-aside in the seat?
Yes. Art VI of the NYC allows the enforcement court to stay enforcement while set-aside proceedings are pending at the seat. The creditor should file a substantive opposition to any stay application, arguing: (i) the set-aside grounds are weak; (ii) the debtor is capable of satisfying the award; (iii) a stay would prejudice the creditor. Courts balance these factors.
Related guides
Published 20 May 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.