>首页 > 仲裁动态 > 仲裁资讯 > 仲裁要闻 > 正文

阿联酋仲裁和迪拜国际金融中心仲裁之比较(一)

更新时间:2017-12-06 16:54:39  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑:lianluobu  点击次数:6738次

阿联酋经济的快速增长,带来了旅游业、大规模基础设施项目、建筑业、商业和国际投资。阿联酋的超常增长也突显了建立现代法律和司法框架的必要性,这种框架能够将信心带入不断增长的市场,并进一步吸引更多的外来投资。大多数外国投资者习惯于在不协调的法律环境下运作(相对于阿联酋的民法制度而言),这种法律环境具有历史和复杂的法律先例,并为在市场经济中经商的人提供了确定的依据和体系。

外国投资者不愿意在国内法院解决争议,因为:

  • 当地法院用阿拉伯文进行诉讼。

  • 尽管阿联酋最高法院的判决对下级法院具有说服力影响,但没有任何具有约束力的判例制度,这可能导致一些不可预测的司法判决。

一个高效透明和现代的法律体系对于任何经济体的效力都是至关重要的,尤其是在像阿联酋这样一个迅速发展的新经济体中。对现代法律框架的需求使得以普通法为蓝本的新的法律和司法平台得以发展,而且也使得阿联酋仲裁作为争议解决首选地得到发展。

本文分析了阿联酋包括迪拜国际金融中心(DIFC)在内的的仲裁选择。同时分析以阿联酋或迪拜国际金融中心为仲裁地的利弊,包括与适用法律、手续、临时措施、保密性、费用以及承认当地和外国裁决有关的问题。

仲裁选择

阿联酋有三个独立的法律体系:

•阿联酋国内法律制度。

DIFC法律体系。迪拜国际金融中心是酋长国迪拜设立的自由贸易区,于2004年成立,拥有自己的民商事法律和自己的法院。它是以国际最佳实践范例为蓝本,大致遵循英国普通法的做法。这样做的目的是吸引国际商界和更多的外商投资。DIFC也根据代表国际最佳实践范例的《1985联合国国际仲裁示范法》制定了自己的仲裁法。DIFC进行的仲裁受到《2008DIFC仲裁法》规定的程序框架的约束。

 •阿布扎比全球市场(ADGM)法律体系。 ADGM是阿布扎比酋长国设立的自由贸易区,成立于2013年,也拥有自己的民事和商业法律,以及自己的使用英语的普通法法院。与DIFC一样,ADGM旨在吸引国际投资进入阿布扎比。ADGM也根据《仲裁示范法》制定了自己的仲裁法。ADGM最近宣布成立了一家具有里程碑意义的新首都仲裁审理中心,即ADGM仲裁中心,并与国际商会(ICC)达成协议。ADGM仲裁中心将驻有国际商会法院的代表处。该中心计划在2018年初开放,无疑将为阿联酋的法律基础设施增添重要的一笔。ADGM是阿联酋法律体系的最新成员。因此,这个初出茅庐的司法管辖区存在很少的判例,而这篇文章提到ADGM的篇幅也是有限的。

仲裁作为解决争议的方式变得越来越普及,仲裁机构的数量也越来越多。今天,独立的仲裁机构分别位于迪拜和阿布扎比的阿联酋:

迪拜国际仲裁中心(DIAC位于迪拜大陆,最近在迪拜国际金融中心设立了分支机构。20168月,DIAC为修订仲裁规则草案(DIAC规则草案)公开征求意见,一旦最终定稿,将取代现有的DIAC规则。消息来源证实,DIAC正在最后修改其规则以反映国际最佳实践范例,并确保DIAC仲裁效率更高且其裁决更容易在DIFC法院前得到执行。这样可以绕过(在等待联邦仲裁法时)迪拜内陆法院在执行形式上和冗长的程序上的障碍。这并不是DIAC尝试克服承认国内裁决所采取的唯一措施。2017年早期,DIAC就在DIFC开设了办事处;此举可以使仲裁当事人诉诸DIFC法院执行裁决。DIAC规则草案引入了以下更改:

  • DIFC作为默认仲裁地;

  • DIAC秘书(其角色作用包括对裁决的核阅);

  • 指定紧急仲裁员的程序;

  • 合并多个当事人争议的程序;

  • 非合同方并入仲裁的程序;

  • 提高效率和避免延误的措施

  • 制裁并惩罚有不良行为的律师。

DIAC规则草案明确规定,仲裁庭成员、DIAC执行委员会、DIAC及其雇员不对任何疏忽或行为负责。根据2016年第7号联邦法令最新修改的1987年第3号联邦刑法(刑法),这一规定有望帮助仲裁员重新信任法律制度。将在DIAC规则中反映的国际最佳实践范例,旨在确保DIAC仲裁在仲裁和执行阶段更为有效。

DIFC-LCIA仲裁中心DIFC与伦敦国际仲裁法院之间的合资企业)位于迪拜酋长国,但位于DIFC内。DIFC-LCIA仲裁中心颁布了适用于2016101日或之后开始的所有仲裁的新规则。DIFC-LCIA的主要目标是管理具有成本效益和效率的仲裁。为此,2016年的规则引入:

  • 指定紧急仲裁员的程序;

  • 合并多位当事人的程序;

  • 提高效率和避免延误的措施

  • 制裁并惩罚不良行为的律师。

这些变化反映了最近LCIA规则和ICC规则所进行的修改以及国际最佳实践范例。2016年的规则规定,在双方没有达成协议的情况下,默认仲裁地是DIFC。但是,一旦仲裁庭成立,仲裁庭可以与当事人进行磋商,并决定适用不同的仲裁地。


阿布扎比商业调解和仲裁中心(ADCCAC位于阿布扎比酋长国。

ADGM可以在其在阿布扎比的普通法管辖权范围内进行仲裁。


所有这些仲裁机构都为解决争议提供了自己的程序规则和条例。还有其他国内的仲裁中心,如沙迦和哈伊马角,以及新的酋长国海事仲裁中心,其重点是处理专门的海事纠纷。

司法体制

阿联酋没有联邦或者国家仲裁法。阿联酋仲裁受1992年第11号联邦法《阿联酋民事诉讼法》(2014年修订,简称CPC)中的少数条款管辖。例如,第203218条规定了仲裁体制,第235238条规定了对外国判决和裁决的执行,第239243条规定了执行程序。鉴于仲裁在阿联酋的普及度,尤其考虑到《民事诉讼法》的主要目的是规制阿联酋国内诉讼而不是仲裁程序(甚至国际仲裁),因此仲裁法律体系并不理想。

因此,阿联酋的仲裁无疑会从联邦仲裁法的实施中受益。经济部已经分发了几个联邦法草案,但是还没有通过。联邦仲裁法的目的是撤销涉及仲裁的《民事诉讼法》的内容,并在阿联酋法律体系内指定现代化仲裁法律框架,使其符合国际仲裁趋势。联邦法律已经讨论了一段时间了。消息来源证实,期待已久的仲裁法正处于颁布的最后阶段,阿联酋将很快将紧跟其他阿拉伯国家,并希望颁布一个依据“联合国贸易法委员会示范法”而制定的现代仲裁法。

相比之下,仲裁地位于DIFCADGM的仲裁则受益于以“贸易法委员会示范法”为依据的专门仲裁法,不受《民事诉讼法》中仲裁条款的约束。

形式要件

清楚明确的仲裁意图

总体来说,阿联酋法院对仲裁协议作出了狭义的解释。这是因为阿联酋法院仍然认为仲裁协议是争夺司法权威,将仲裁视为解决争议的一种特殊方式。因此,仲裁协议的措辞应该明确无误,并且反映了双方理解并打算将可能出现的任何争议提交仲裁的事实。

合同当事人可以将他们之间可能出现的争议提交仲裁:

  • 通过主合同中的仲裁条款或单独的仲裁协议。

  • 通过参照授权同意仲裁的当事人之间的相互往来,或在某些特定商业交易中的明示做法视为同意仲裁(例如,受FIDIC一般合同条件约束的建筑合同)。

《民事诉讼法》规定仲裁协议的内容不需要专门措词。但是,大多数仲裁机构提供示范仲裁条款,缔约方可以采取。为了提高效率,仲裁协议应该是明确的,以确保在管辖权方面不存在潜在的问题。

“书面形式”的广义解释

DIFC法律体系遵循《联合国示范法》关于遵守有约束力的仲裁协议的某些形式规定。DIFC仲裁法规定,仲裁协议必须以书面形式。但是,“书面”的概念是广泛的,如果仲裁协议的内容以任何形式记录,则仲裁协议就被认为是书面的。此外,“DIFC仲裁法”明确确认,仲裁协议可以通过当事人的行为缔结,而没有实际的书面文件。此外,如果仲裁协议载于一方当事人指称存在协议而又不被另一方否认的仲裁申请和答辩书的交换中,则默认为书面仲裁协议。有鉴于此,在没有仲裁协议的情况下,在处理主张有仲裁协议的申请书时应小心。

有效性

当事人经常忽视合同争议条款的重要性。然而,考虑争议解决条款是非常重要的,特别是在仲裁成为双方解决争议的首选方法的情况下。合同中的仲裁协议或条款必须符合一系列的形式要件才有效。这些形式可能会有所不同,取决于仲裁是在阿联酋国内法律系统还是在DIFC进行仲裁。

《民事诉讼法》对仲裁协议的可执行性提出强制性要求。例如,仲裁协议必须有:

  • 以书面形式(第2032)条)

  • 争议事项(第2033))

  • 不包括不可仲裁的不可调和的事项(第2034)条)

当法人(企业实体)是被仲裁协议约束的一方时,协议必须由公司授予签署仲裁协议的人签署。2015年修改之前《关于商业公司19848号联邦法》(CCL)的有限责任公司,阿联酋法院一致裁定,这一权力被认为赋予公司总经理。为此,应该提供公司的营业执照副本,以确保总经理的身份无误。仲裁协议如果由缺乏相应权利的人签署则无法生效。如果公司总经理以外的其他人员签署了仲裁协议或涉及其他类型的公司,则有必要获得具体的授权书或公司授权书(如董事会决议),以确认签署仲裁协议的人员是经正式授权而为,公司才受仲裁协议约束。然而,迪拜法院最近确认,在诚信和表见代理的总体原则下,即使仲裁协议未经总经理签署,公司受仲裁协议约束。这意味着,即使一个人没有担任总经理,他也能代表公司作为授权代表与第三方洽谈,并使公司受到仲裁协议约束。然而,还是建议要确保仲裁协议的签署方有明确的授权,以便于公司受仲裁约束。

2015年第2号联邦法》(新公司法)(于201571日生效,取代CCL)强化了阿联酋国家股份有限公司(PJSC)受制于仲裁条款的限制性做法。公司章程(新公司法)中必须明确规定PJSC董事会有权同意仲裁作为解决争议方式。或者,仲裁协议必须视为公司目标之一(事实上并非如此),或者公司大会发布特别决议。这种限制性的做法强化了《民事诉讼法》第58条第2款的规定,该条规定了一般性限制条件,即如果没有特别的决议,签署仲裁协议的权利就不能委托给他人。

新公司法还引入了新的第104条(规制有限责任公司),其中规定,除非新公司法另有规定,有关股份公司(JSC)的条款适用于有限责任公司(LLCs)。基于对第104条和第154条的联合解读,其中第104条引起了一个争议,即有限责任公司的总经理是否必须获得具体授权才能同意仲裁(根据公司章程或股东特别决议)。这种做法与阿联酋法院认定的有限责任公司的总经理被推定有权签署仲裁条款的原则相矛盾。

CCL和新《公司法》均规定,JSC董事只能在股东明确授权或公司章程明确规定的情况下同意仲裁。此外,《民事诉讼法》第582)条规定,需要特别授权才能有效地同意仲裁或给予授权。

这引起了法律专业人士的讨论,以及对新《公司法》有关有限责任公司的某些条款的正确解释和适用的不确定性。鉴于新《公司法》最近才颁布,目前还没有涉及这一问题的判例。

2016428日,《2016272号内阁决议》出台以澄清上述情况,明确排除新《公司法》中对有限责任公司适用有关PJSC的规定,包括要求PJSC董事要有明确权利签订仲裁协议。

然而,在仲裁期间或执行阶段为了避免相关董事缺乏代表相关公司同意仲裁的权利和能力而遭到任何质疑,明确赋予董事权利(在公司章程或股东决议中)是明智的。

未完,待续!

【英文】

Comparison of UAE and DIFC-seatedarbitrations

Author: Celine Kanakri and Andrew Massey

The rapid growth of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE’s)economy brought with it tourism, mass infrastructural projects, construction,commerce and international investment. The UAE’s exceptional growth alsohighlighted the need for a modern legal and judicial framework capable ofinstilling confidence into the growing market, and to further attract moreinward investment. Most foreign investors were accustomed to operating incommon law environments (as opposed to the civil law system in the UAE), whichhave a historical and sophisticated body of binding legal precedents andtherefore offer certainty for those doing business in a market economy.

Foreign investors were reluctant to use the domesticcourts to settle disputes, as both:

·        Proceedings in the local courts are conducted in Arabic.

·        Although the decisions of the UAE Court of Cassation havea persuasive effect on lower courts, there is no system of binding precedent,which can result in some instances in unpredictable judicial decisions.

An efficient, transparent and modern legal system isvital to the efficacy of any economy, but particularly in a new and rapidlyexpanding economy such as the UAE. The need for a modern legal framework led tothe development of not only new legal and judicial platforms that are modelledon common law, but also the growth of arbitration in the UAE as the preferredoption for dispute resolution.

This article analyses the options for arbitration in theUAE, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). It analyses theadvantages and disadvantages of using the UAE or the DIFC as a seat ofarbitration, including issues relating to applicable law, formalities, interimmeasures, confidentiality, costs, and ratification of local and foreign awards.

OPTIONS FOR ARBITRATION

There are three separate legal systems in the UAE:

·        The domestic UAE legal system.

·        The DIFC legal system. The DIFC is a free zone in the Emirateof Dubai, created in 2004, that has its own civil and commercial laws and itsown courts. It is modelled on international best practice and largely followsthe English common law approach. It has been designed to appeal to theinternational business community and attract further foreign investment in theregion. The DIFC also has its own arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL Model Lawon International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law),which represents international best practice. Arbitration seated in the DIFC issubject to the procedural framework set out in the DIFC Arbitration Law 2008.

·        The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) legal system. The ADGMis a free zone in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, established in 2013, that also hasits own civil and commercial laws, and its own English-language common lawcourts. In common with the DIFC, the ADGM has been designed to attractinternational investment into Abu Dhabi. The ADGM also has its own arbitrationlaw based on the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law. The ADGM has very recentlyannounced a landmark new arbitration hearing centre for the capital, namely theADGM Arbitration Centre, alongside an agreement with the International Chamberof Commerce (ICC). The ADGM Arbitration Centre will be accompanied by arepresentative office of the ICC Court. It is scheduled to open in early 2018and will undoubtedly make a significant addition to the UAE’s legal infrastructure.The ADGM is a recent addition to the UAE’s legal system. Therefore, very littlejurisprudence has emerged from this fledgling jurisdiction and this articleonly makes limited reference to the ADGM.

As thepopularity of arbitration has grown as a method for resolving disputes, so toohas the number of arbitration institutions offering arbitration. Today,separate arbitration institutions are located in each of the Emirates of Dubaiand Abu Dhabi:

·        The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) islocated in mainland Dubai and very recently opened a branch office within theDIFC. In August 2016, the DIAC issued for public consultation a draft ofamended arbitration rules (Draft DIAC Rules) that are, once finalised, intendedto replace the existing DIAC Rules. Sources confirm that the DIAC is in thefinal process of amending its rules to reflect international best practices andensure that DIAC arbitrations are more efficient and its awards are easilyenforced before the DIFC courts. This would allow bypassing the formalistic andlengthy procedural hurdle of enforcement before the inland Dubai Courts, whileawaiting for a Federal arbitration law. This is not the only step taken by theDIAC to attempt to overcome the process of ratification of domestic awards.Earlier in 2017, the DIAC has opened an office in the DIFC; a move that permitsarbitration parties to resort to the DIFC courts to enforce their awards. TheDraft DIAC Rules introduce the following change.

o   the DIFC as a default seat of arbitration;

o   a DIAC Secretariat (the role of which includes thescrutiny of awards);

o   a procedure for appointing an emergency arbitrator;

o   a procedure for the consolidation of multi-partydisputes;

o   a procedure for joinder of non-signatory parties to thearbitration proceedings;

o   measures to increase efficiency and avoid delays; and

o   sanctions to punish counsel for poor conduct.

  • The Draft DIAC Rules include a clear provision excludingthe liability of members of the Arbitral Tribunal, the DIAC ExecutiveCommittee, the DIAC and its employees for any omission or act. This provisionwill hopefully help arbitrators regaining some trust in the legal systemfollowing the latest changes to the Federal Penal Code No. 3 of 1987 (PenalCode) by Federal Decree Law No. 7 of 2016. The changes to be introduced in theDIAC Rules, which reflect international best practices, are designed to ensurethat DIAC arbitrations are more efficient at the arbitration and enforcementstages.

  • The DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre (a joint venture     between the DIFC and the London Court of International Arbitration) is     located in the Emirate of Dubai but is situated within the DIFC. The     DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre issued new rules that apply to all     arbitrations commenced on or after 1 October 2016. The primary objective     of the DIFC-LCIA is to administer cost-effective and efficient arbitrations.     To this end, the 2016 rules introduce:

    • a procedure for appointing an emergency      arbitrator;

    • a procedure for consolidation of multi-party      disputes;

    • measures to increase efficiency and avoid      delays; and

    • sanctions to punish counsel for poor conduct.

  • These changes reflect recent amendments to the LCIA Rulesand the ICC Rules, as well as international best practices. The 2016 rulesprovide that, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the default seatof arbitration is the DIFC. However, once the tribunal is constituted, it canconsult with the parties and order that a different seat of arbitrationapplies.

  • The Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and ArbitrationCentre (ADCCAC) is located in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.

  • The ADGM can seat arbitrations within its separate commonlaw jurisdiction in Abu Dhabi.

All of thesearbitral institutions offer their own procedural rules and regulations for theresolution of disputes. There are also other domestic arbitration centres, suchas in Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah, and the new Emirates Maritime ArbitrationCentre, the focus of which is to deal with specialist maritime disputes.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The UAE does not have a federal ornational arbitration law. Arbitration in the UAE is governed by a small numberof provisions set out in the UAE Civil Procedure Code, Federal Law No. (11) of1992 (as amended in 2014) (CPC). For example, Articles 203 to 218 regulate theframework for arbitrations, Articles 235 to 238 regulate the execution offoreign judgments and awards, and Articles 239 to 243 regulate the executionprocedures. This is not ideal, given the popularity of arbitration in the UAE,and particularly given that the main purpose of the CPC is to govern domesticlegal proceedings in the UAE rather than arbitration proceedings (and even lessso, international arbitration).

Arbitration in the UAE would therefore undoubtedlybenefit from the introduction of a federal law on arbitration. The Ministry ofthe Economy has circulated several draft federal laws, but nothing has beenenacted yet. The intended purpose of a federal law on arbitration is to repealthe sections of the CPC that deal with arbitration, and modernise thearbitration framework within the UAE legal regime and bring it in line withinternational best practice. The federal law has been mootedfor some time. Sources confirm that the long awaited arbitration law is in thefinal stages of its promulgation and that the UAE will soon follow the path ofa number of its neighbouring Arab countries, and will hopefully promulgate amodern arbitration law modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

In contrast, arbitration seated in the DIFC or the ADGMbenefit from specialist arbitration laws that are based on the UNCITRAL ModelLaw, and are not subject to the CPC arbitration provisions.

FORMALITIES

Clear and unequivocal intention to arbitrate

On the whole, the UAE courts construe agreements toarbitrate narrowly. This is because the UAE courts still view arbitrationagreements as a usurpation of their judicial authority and as an exceptionalmethod of dispute resolution. The wording of the arbitration agreement shouldtherefore be clear and unequivocal, and reflect the fact that the partiesunderstand and intend that any dispute which may arise should be referred toarbitration.

The parties to a contract can refer a dispute that mayarise between them to arbitration either:

·        Through a clause in the main contract providing forarbitration or a separate arbitration agreement.

·        By reference to an express exchange of correspondence bythe parties authorising them to agree to arbitration or in some specificcommercial transactions by reference (for example, construction contractssubject to the FIDIC general conditions of contracts).

The CPC does not require any special wording for thecontent of the arbitration agreement. However, most arbitration institutionsprovide model arbitration clauses, which contracting parties would be wise toadopt. To be effective, the arbitration agreement should be unequivocal toensure that no potential problems arise concerning jurisdiction.

Broad interpretation of “in writing”

The DIFC legal system follows the UNCITRAL Model Lawprovisions regarding compliance with certain formalities for a bindingarbitration agreement. The DIFC Arbitration Law provides that an arbitrationagreement must be in writing. However, the concept of “writing” is broad andthe arbitration agreement is considered to be in writing if its content isrecorded in any form. Further, the DIFC Arbitration Law explicitly confirmsthat an arbitration agreement can be concluded by the conduct of the parties,without an actual written document. In addition, an arbitration agreement is inwriting if it is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence inwhich the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied bythe other. In light of this, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, careshould be taken when served with a statement of claim asserting the existenceof an arbitration agreement.

Validity

Parties often overlook the importance of the disputeresolution provisions of their contract. However, it is vitally important toconsider the dispute resolution clause, specifically where arbitration iscontemplated as the parties’ preferred method of dispute resolution. To bevalid, an arbitration agreement or clause in a contract must comply with anumber of formalities. These formalities may differ depending on whether thearbitration is seated in the domestic UAE legal system or in the DIFC.

The CPC provides for mandatory requirements for theenforceability of arbitration agreements. For example, an arbitration agreementmust:

·   Be in writing (Article 203(2), CPC).

·   Specify the subject matter of the dispute (Article203(3), CPC).

·   Not include irreconcilable matters that are excluded fromarbitration (Article 203(4), CPC).

Where a legal person (corporate entity) is the party tobe bound by the arbitration agreement, the agreement must be signed by a personauthorised to bind the company to arbitration. In limited liability companies governedby Federal Law No. 8 of 1984 concerning Commercial Companies (CCL) prior to itsamendment in 2015, the UAE courts consistently ruled that this authority ispresumed to be with the company’s general manager. In this respect, a copy ofthe company’s trade licence should be obtained to ensure the manager’s identityis correct. The arbitration agreement is invalid if it is signed by someonelacking the appropriate authority. Where someone other than the company’sgeneral manager signs the agreement or where another type of company isinvolved, it was necessary to obtain a specific power of attorney or companyauthority (such as a board resolution) to confirm that the person signing thearbitration agreement was duly authorised to do so and could bind the companyto arbitration proceedings. However, the Dubai courts have recently confirmed,with reference to the overarching principles of good faith and apparentauthority, that a company may be bound by an arbitration agreement even if thearbitration agreement was not signed by the general manager. This means that aperson representing himself or herself to a third party as a company’sauthorised representative will be able to bind that company to arbitration,even if he or she was not the general manager. It is however always recommendedto ensure that signatories of an arbitration agreement have express authorityto bind the companies to arbitration.

Federal Law No. 2 of 2015 (New Companies Law) (enteredinto force on 1 July 2015, replacing the CCL) reinforces the restrictiveapproach relating to how a UAE public joint stock company (PJSC) binds itselfto an arbitration clause. The power of a PJSC’s board to agree to arbitrationas a means of resolving disputes must be explicitly stated in the company’sarticles of association (New Companies Law). Alternatively, an agreement toarbitrate must be considered as one of the company’s objectives (which inpractice will not be the case), or the general assembly must issue a specialresolution. This restrictive approach reinforces the provisions of Article58(2) of the CPC, which provides for a general restriction under which the powerto agree to arbitration cannot be delegated to others without a specialresolution to that effect.

The New Companies Law also introduces a new Article 104(regulating limited liability companies), which provides that, unless otherwiseprovided by the New Companies Law, the provisions concerning joint stockcompanies (JSCs) apply to limited liability companies (LLCs). The introductionof Article 104 raised a controversy as to whether a general manager of an LLCmust now be specifically empowered to agree to arbitration (either by thearticles of association or a special resolution of the shareholders), based ona combined reading of Articles 104 and 154. This approach contradicts theprinciple that the UAE courts have established that general managers of an LLCare presumed to have the power to sign an arbitration clause.

The CCL and the New Companies Law both state that adirector of a JSCs can only agree to arbitration if expressly authorised to doso by the shareholders or in the company’s articles of association.Additionally, Article 58(2) of the CPC provides that a special authorisation isrequired to validly agree to arbitrate or to delegate this power.

This has resulted in discussions in the legal professionand uncertainty over the correct interpretation and application of certainprovisions of the New Companies Law to LLCs. Given that the New Companies Lawhas only recently been promulgated, there is currently no case law that dealswith this issue.

On 28 April 2016,  Ministerial Resolution No. (272) of 2016 wasintroduced to clarify the position, by expressly excluding the application ofcertain provisions of the New Companies Law regarding PJSCs to LLCs, includingthose requiring PJSCs’ directors to have express powers to enter intoarbitration agreements.

It is however always prudent to expressly give directorsexpress powers (in the articles of association or in a shareholders’resolution) to avoid any challenge during an arbitration or at the stage ofenforcement that the relevant directors lacked the authority and capacity toagree to arbitration on behalf of the relevant company.

To be contunued.