This order clarifies the threshold for admitting expert evidence in arbitration set-aside applications, confirming that the DIFC Court will not permit expert testimony on matters of procedural fairness that fall within the Court’s own legal competence.
Why did Oratio seek permission to rely on expert evidence from a UAE advocate in its set-aside application against Orangia?
The dispute arises from an arbitration set-aside application initiated by Oratio on 3 November 2025. Oratio sought to challenge an arbitral award, arguing that the tribunal’s decision-making process violated fundamental principles of natural justice and UAE public policy. Specifically, Oratio contended that the tribunal relied on arguments that were never advanced by the claimant during the arbitration, thereby depriving Oratio of an opportunity to respond. To support this challenge, Oratio filed an application to introduce expert evidence from a locally qualified UAE advocate to interpret the scope of UAE public policy in this context.
This is the Claimant’s Application dated 30 December 2025 (the “Application”) seeking permission, pursuant to Rule 31.12-31.14 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), to rely on expert evidence from a locally qualified UAE advocate on matters said to engage UAE public policy.
Oratio argued that such evidence was essential to navigate the complexities of UAE public policy, citing prior DIFC authorities to suggest that the Court would rarely be in a position to determine such issues without expert assistance. The claimant maintained that the expert evidence was "reasonably required" to resolve the proceedings fairly, even though it had not yet identified a specific expert at the time of the application. Further details on the broader implications of this ruling can be found at: Oratio v Orangia [2026] DIFC ARB 043: The Limits of Expert Evidence in Public Policy Challenges.
Which judge presided over the Oratio v Orangia [2026] DIFC ARB 043 hearing in the Arbitration Division?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi, sitting in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 6 February 2026.
What were the specific legal arguments advanced by Oratio and Orangia regarding the necessity of expert evidence?
Oratio argued that the introduction of expert evidence was necessary to properly define the boundaries of UAE public policy, asserting that the Court required specialized assistance to ensure the set-aside application was resolved efficiently. Oratio’s position was that the complexity of the public policy argument necessitated an expert to guide the Court’s interpretation of UAE legal norms.
Conversely, Orangia argued that the application was a tactical attempt to delay the proceedings. Orangia contended that Oratio failed to identify any concrete or disputed issue of UAE public policy, presenting instead a high-level, abstract proposition. Orangia maintained that the core of the claimant's complaint was actually a matter of procedural fairness, which is already codified under the Arbitration Law.
The Defendant submits the Claimant’s complaint is in substance an alleged procedural unfairness point which is already governed by Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration Law.
Orangia further highlighted that Oratio had filed multiple rounds of evidence since November 2025 without previously identifying a need for such expertise, suggesting that the request was an afterthought rather than a genuine requirement for the resolution of the dispute.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the admissibility of expert evidence?
The Court had to determine whether the proposed expert evidence was "reasonably required" under RDC 31.12 to resolve the specific issues raised in the set-aside application. The doctrinal question was whether the Court should permit expert testimony on a matter—procedural fairness and natural justice—that the Court is inherently competent to adjudicate. The Court had to decide if the claimant’s invocation of "UAE public policy" was a genuine legal question requiring expert elucidation or merely a re-characterization of a procedural fairness claim that falls squarely within the Court’s own jurisdiction under the Arbitration Law.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the test of "reasonable requirement" to the evidence proposed by Oratio?
Justice Al Sawalehi applied a strict test of necessity, emphasizing that expert evidence is not an automatic right in DIFC proceedings. The Court assessed whether the evidence would assist in resolving a genuine dispute or if it was directed at matters within the Court’s own competence.
the Court retains a discretion to refuse permission for expert evidence where such evidence is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, would be disproportionate, or is directed to matters "
The Court concluded that Oratio had failed to identify any specific rule or doctrine of UAE public policy that required expert explanation. Instead, the Court found that the claimant’s argument was a standard procedural fairness complaint. Because the Court is fully competent to interpret and apply Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration Law without external assistance, the request for expert evidence was deemed unnecessary and disproportionate.
Which specific statutes and RDC rules governed the Court’s decision to dismiss the application?
The Court’s decision was primarily governed by the following provisions:
- Arbitration Law Article 41(2)(a)(ii): This section provides the legal framework for setting aside an award on the basis of procedural unfairness, which the Court determined was the true nature of the claimant's complaint.
- RDC 31.12: This rule stipulates that expert evidence must be restricted to that which is "reasonably required" to resolve the proceedings.
- RDC 1.6 and 4.2: These rules grant the Court broad case-management powers, allowing it to control the scope of evidence to ensure efficiency and proportionality.
How did the Court distinguish the claimant’s reliance on prior DIFC authorities regarding public policy?
Oratio attempted to rely on previous DIFC rulings to argue that the Court is rarely in a position to determine public policy issues without expert evidence. The Court rejected this, noting that the claimant had failed to provide a properly particularized issue. The Court clarified that expert evidence is only appropriate where there is a genuine, concrete dispute regarding the content or existence of a specific rule of UAE law. Since Oratio’s complaint was essentially about the tribunal’s conduct—specifically the failure to provide an opportunity to respond—it was a matter of procedural fairness.
The Claimant’s pleaded complaint, being deprived of the opportunity to meet a case not advanced, is directly addressed by Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration Law.
The Court held that the prior authorities cited by the claimant did not establish a blanket rule that public policy challenges always require expert evidence.
What was the final outcome and the specific orders made by the Court?
The Court dismissed the application in its entirety. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant (Oratio) pay the respondent’s (Orangia) costs associated with the application. The respondent was directed to submit a statement of costs, limited to a maximum of three pages, within five days of the order.
What are the practical implications of this decision for practitioners in the DIFC?
This decision serves as a warning to practitioners that the DIFC Court will maintain a rigorous gatekeeping role regarding expert evidence. Litigants must be prepared to demonstrate that any proposed expert evidence is not only relevant but "reasonably required" to resolve a specific, identified legal issue. Practitioners should avoid using "public policy" as a catch-all phrase to justify the introduction of expert testimony. If the underlying issue is one of procedural fairness or natural justice, the Court will likely view it as a matter within its own competence, and attempts to introduce expert evidence on such topics will be viewed as an unnecessary and disproportionate delay tactic.
Where can I read the full judgment in Oratio v Orangia [2026] DIFC ARB 043?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0432025-oratio-v-orangia-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-043-2025_20260206.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | The Court relied on general principles of RDC Part 31 and Article 41 of the Arbitration Law rather than specific precedent cases. |
Legislation referenced:
- Arbitration Law Article 41(2)(a)(ii)
- RDC 1.6
- RDC 4.2
- RDC 31.12
- RDC 31.14