Latest News
Back
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awards: B v C
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awards: B v C
Introduction:
On May 5, 2024, the Civil and Commercial Court of the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) rendered a pivotal judgment in the case of B v C, concerning the setting aside of an arbitration award under the QFC Arbitration Regulations 2005. This judgment is significant as it marks the first instance of the Court addressing the setting aside of an award in QFC-seated arbitrations, while also shedding light on key principles under Article 41 of the QFC Arbitration Regulations.
Jurisdiction and Principles Governing the Setting Aside of Awards:
Arbitrations seated in Doha are governed by Law No. 2 of 2017, whereas those in the QFC are regulated by the QFC Arbitration Regulations. Article 41 of these regulations, based on Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, outlines the grounds for setting aside awards.
Forum and Jurisdiction:
Article 41(1) specifies that applications to set aside awards must be made to the "QFC Tribunal." Despite the intended creation of a QFC Tribunal by the TDR Regulations, it was never established. Since the Court's establishment in 2009, its jurisdiction over QFC-seated arbitrations was unclear until the C v D decision, which clarified the Court's supervisory jurisdiction. B v C reaffirmed this jurisdiction, emphasizing that non-QFC entities could agree to QFC-seated arbitration, thereby invoking the Court's supervisory jurisdiction under the QFC Arbitration Regulations.
Grounds for Setting Aside:
Article 41(2) of the QFC Arbitration Regulations delineates the grounds for challenging awards, including issues of incapacity, improper notice, decisions beyond the terms of submission, and procedural inconsistencies. Additionally, Article 41(2)(B) allows the Court to set aside awards on grounds of non-arbitrability or if the award conflicts with the "interest of the QFC."
Time Limit:
The QFC Arbitration Regulations stipulate a three-month time limit to file a set-aside application from the award's receipt date, with an exception for public policy conflicts, for which no time limit applies.
Key Findings of the Court:
Time Limit Clarification
The Court clarified that the filing date, not the service date, is relevant for Article 41's time limits, preventing practical issues in service from affecting the set-aside application’s validity.
Statutory Interpretation
The Court underscored its approach to statutory interpretation, aligning with international practices from other Model Law jurisdictions. It emphasized that Article 41 should be interpreted in line with the Model Law, reflecting a broader international perspective.
Grounds for Challenge:
The primary challenge in B v C was based on the award not being "in the interest of the QFC." The Court interpreted "interest of the QFC" and "public policy of the QFC" as synonymous. The applicant's grounds, including the tribunal’s failure to adhere to mandatory Qatari law provisions and insufficient reasoning for witness credibility, were dismissed. The Court held that such errors did not meet the threshold for being against public policy.
Conclusion:
The judgment in B v C is a landmark decision, reinforcing a pro-enforcement policy consistent with international arbitration principles. It sets a precedent for the interpretation of the QFC Arbitration Regulations, particularly regarding the grounds for setting aside awards. Future developments in mainland Qatar's jurisprudence, especially on public policy issues, will be crucial in shaping the Court’s approach in subsequent cases.
