OMAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Sultan Al Ghafri, Nasser Al Riyami, Abdullah Al Aufi and Joud Lashko, Al Khalili, Al Ghailani & Co. LLP (K&Co.)
general pro-arbitration stance of the Omani judiciary, the courts have generally shown a degree of restraint in intervening on jurisdictional questions, respecting the tribunal’s competence-competence under Article 22 and being reluctant to second-guess an arbitral tribunal’s assessment of its own jurisdiction in the absence of one of the exhaustive statutory grounds. Omani courts do review negative jurisdictional rulings, that is, decisions where a tribunal declines jurisdic - tion, since Article 13 (2) confirms that the pendency of court proceedings does not itself prevent a party from pursuing its claim, and a party affected by a negative ruling retains the right to bring its claim before the ordinary courts. 5.3 Timing of Challenge A party’s ability to challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal before the Omani courts principally arises after an award has been rendered, through an action to annul the award under Article 53 of the Arbi - tration Law, brought within 90 days of notification of the award under Article 54 (1), before the competent Court of Appeal identified in Article 9. The exhaus - tive grounds available under Article 53 (1) include the invalidity or lapse of the arbitration agreement and the tribunal exceeding the scope of matters submitted to it. Where court proceedings are instead commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement, Article 13 (1) requires the objecting party to raise the existence of that agreement before submitting any other request or defence, so that the court can decline jurisdiction in favour of arbitration; Article 13 (2) confirms that the mere filing of such proceedings does not prevent the arbitration from commencing or continuing, or prevent an award being rendered. It is not generally possible under Omani practice to bring a free-standing applica - tion to the courts challenging a tribunal’s jurisdiction while the arbitration is ongoing and before an award, or partial award on jurisdiction under Article 22 (3), has been issued, save in the limited circumstances described above concerning the constitution of the
practice, where jurisdiction or admissibility is raised in the context of an application to annul an award under Article 53 of the Arbitration Law, the court’s review tends to focus narrowly on whether one of the grounds enumerated in Article 53 (1)(a) to (g) is made out – for example, whether a valid arbitration agreement exist - ed, whether the tribunal exceeded the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate under Article 53 (1)(f), or whether the tribunal was properly constituted under Article 53 (1)(e) – rather than re-examining the merits of the tribunal’s reasoning on jurisdiction generally. Article 53 (2) additionally obliges the court to annul an award of its own motion where it conflicts with Omani public order, but this too is a narrow, public-policy- driven inquiry rather than a substantive re-hearing. This approach is, in substance, closer to a limited or supervisory review than to a full re-hearing of juris - dictional questions, reflecting the exhaustive and nar - rowly framed nature of the Article 53 grounds and the courts’ general reluctance to interfere with an arbitral tribunal’s competence-competence under Article 22. 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement Where a party commences court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement, Article 13 (1) of the Arbitration Law requires the Omani courts to declare the claim inadmissible, provided the defend - ant raises the existence of the arbitration agreement before submitting any other request or defence on the merits of the case. This reflects a general willingness on the part of the national courts to give effect to the parties’ contractual choice of arbitration rather than to allow a party to circumvent that choice by resorting to litigation. That said, the willingness of the courts to decline jurisdiction depends on the arbitration agree - ment satisfying the writing requirement under Article 12 and covering the dispute in question; where there is genuine doubt as to the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement, the courts may need to consider that threshold question before applying Arti - cle 13. Article 13 (2) further confirms that the filing of court proceedings in these circumstances does not itself prevent the arbitration from commencing or con - tinuing, or prevent an award being rendered in parallel. 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties The Arbitration Law is principally premised on consent, defining an arbitration agreement under Article 10 (1)
tribunal itself under Articles 17 to 21. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility
Omani courts do not apply a uniform, codified stand - ard of review comparable to a formal “de novo” or “deferential” test familiar in some other jurisdictions. In
680 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook