Answer ... Although the Arbitration Law does not regulate the consolidation of separate arbitrations, this is still possible in Egypt. As long as the parties to the arbitration have agreed on institutional rules that provide for such consolidation, consolidation per se will not constitute an issue. The Egyptian courts will not refuse to grant an exequatur to an arbitral award that has been rendered following the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings.

However, consolidation could present a problem where the parties are involved in ad hoc proceedings and the seat is Egypt if the relevant governing provisions are missing. By and large, there are no conditions for consolidation set forth in the Arbitration Law, given the lack of provisions addressing this matter. Although consolidation is not explicitly restricted in ad hoc proceedings, it is unlikely to take place and any attempts at consolidation – especially with the parties’ disagreement – would likely be unsuccessful. Therefore, it is highly recommended to agree on institutional rules that govern the consolidation of separate arbitrations.

Answer ... As in the case of consolidation of arbitrations (see question 7.1), the Arbitration Law does not address the joinder of additional parties to an arbitration which has already commenced. Most importantly, arbitration is considered an exceptional recourse of adjudication and the Egyptian regime is thus sceptical towards the joinder of additional parties – especially those which are deemed third parties or which do not meet the conditions set forth for the extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories. While the Arbitration Law allows for multi-party arbitration, this applies exclusively to parties which have explicitly agreed to arbitrate (ie, the parties to the arbitration agreement). Pursuant to the Arbitration Law, a third party which is not a party to an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate (save in the cases referred to in question 7.3). By and large, the joinder of a third party without its consent is not possible under the Egyptian regime.

Answer ... There are exceptions to the rule that the arbitration agreement is limited to the contracting parties only, and that a third party which is not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Almost all of these exceptions fall under the internationally recognised notion of ‘extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories’. This notion is permitted under the Egyptian arbitration regime, despite the absence of any express provisions addressing this issue in the Arbitration Law. The extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories is rooted in prominent legal tenets that have mostly been adopted in the same manner in different legal jurisdictions. The most common grounds for the extension of the arbitration agreement include succession, assignment, estoppel and group of companies (Court of Cassation, Challenges 2698, 3100 and 3299 of JY 86, 13 March 2018). These principles are grounded in Egyptian laws of a substantive nature.

From a legal standpoint, the grounds for the extension to the arbitration agreement have their origins in the law applicable on the merits. This is the law under which the parties’ transaction is governed, which determines and governs their rights and obligations, including performance, discharge, assignment and succession. All Egyptian laws allow for the extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories based on their consent to the arbitration agreement – for example, through involvement by assignment or through universal succession. Accordingly, the extension of an arbitration agreement to non-signatories permits the involvement of third parties, but differs from joinder per se. The former is triggered through a matter that is governed by and regulated under the applicable substantive law; while the latter – like consolidation – is normally of a procedural nature (litigatory action).