Does the Execution Judge have the jurisdiction to authorise the service of a lawsuit filed abroad against a defendant residing in the United Arab Emirates?

The Dubai Court of Cassation addressed this issue for the first time in its landmark ruling in Commercial Cassation No. 489 of 2025, during its session held on 23 July 2025.

The Court established an important principle, wherein it concluded by dismissing the cassation appeal and upholding both the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the decision of the Execution Judge refusing to issue an order for service of the statement of claim.

The facts of the dispute, as may be summarised, are as follows:

The appellant company filed before the competent Execution Judge of the Dubai Courts a petition for an order on petition in an executory form, seeking the issuance of an order affixing the writ of execution to an order issued by the New York Court, which directed that the respondents be served with the statement of claim by email, in accordance with the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedure Law.

The appellant had filed the aforementioned lawsuit against the respondents before the New York State Court, seeking to recover amounts allegedly due and owing from them. As the respondents were not resident in the United States of America, the appellant encountered difficulties in effecting service of the lawsuit upon them. Consequently, it applied to the New York Court for an order permitting service by email pursuant to UAE law, which the court duly granted.

Accordingly, the appellant submitted a petition to the Execution Judge in Dubai seeking to affix the writ of execution to that order. However, the Execution Judge declined to issue the requested order. The appellant challenged that decision by way of appeal, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Execution Judge’s decision and rejected the request. The appellant then sought further review by filing a petition for cassation, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Cassation, thereby affirming both the decision of the Execution Judge and the ruling of the Court of Appeal to refuse the issuance of the order.

The Court based its ruling on the following grounds, after citing Articles 222 and 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, and emphasised the following:

It is established, pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Dubai Court of Cassation, that the issuance of an order by the Execution Judge is contingent upon the fulfilment of the legal conditions prescribed under Articles 212(1) and 222 of the Civil Procedure Law.

These conditions stipulate that compulsory execution may not proceed except on the basis of an enforceable writ evidencing a right that is certain in existence, definite in amount, and due for performance.

Furthermore, it is required that a certificate be submitted evidencing the existence of a judicial judgment that has acquired the force of res judicata.

The Court further affirmed an important principle, namely that there is no scope for interpreting a clear and unambiguous statutory provision where its wording is unequivocal in indicating its intended meaning, nor is there any justification for departing from it under the guise of interpretation or by inquiring into its underlying purpose.

In its reasoning, and after setting out the aforementioned legal principles, the Court clarified in response to the appellant’s grounds of challenge as follows:

It was evident from the case file that the order sought to be affixed with the executory formula is, in substance, a decision issued by the court that rendered it, permitting the appellant company to serve the respondents—who had neither been served with the statement of claim nor appeared before that court—by email, pursuant to the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedure Law.

In its judgment, the Court, in responding to the appellant’s contention that its request was intended solely for the service of process upon the respondent, reaffirmed its settled principle that service of process in respect of a lawsuit instituted outside the State does not require a judgment affixed with an executory formula in order to be executed within the State.

What is derived from this judgment is that the Execution Judge lacks jurisdiction to enforce orders issued outside the State concerning the service of a statement of claim.

Moreover, the conditions required for the execution of foreign orders are:

• (i) the existence of an enforceable writ evidencing a right that is certain in existence, definite in amount, and due for performance; and
• (ii) the submission of a certificate evidencing the existence of a judicial judgment that has acquired the force of res judicata.