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

Last Updated: 20 June 2017
Article by Antonios Dimitracopoulos
Most Read Contributor in United Arab Emirates, June 2017

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.