Business Law Case Analysis: Meydan Group LLC v Banyan Tree Dispute

This case study analyzes the legal dispute between Meydan Group LLC, a UAE real estate developer, and Banyan Tree, a Singaporean hotel operator, concerning the breach of an agreement to operate a hotel. The core issue revolves around the enforcement of an arbitral award favoring Banyan Tree, which Meydan Group contested. The analysis examines the application of DIFC Arbitration law, particularly Articles 42 and 43, which grant the DIFC courts the power to recognize and enforce arbitral awards. The study also addresses the potential for Dubai Courts to deny enforcement based on public policy arguments, referencing Article 7(3)(c) of the amended Judicial Authority Law, which restricts such exemptions. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of UAE public code in ratifying awards to avoid prolonged legal processes. The study references relevant legal articles and case laws, providing a comprehensive overview of the case's legal and procedural intricacies.

Running Head: BUSINESS LAW 1
Meydan Group LLC v
Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Ltd
Name
Institution

BUSINESS LAW 2
Issue
The heart of the disagreement was whether or not a UAE real estate developer known as
Meydan Group had authentically dismissed an agreement in which Banyan Tree, an associate
hotel operator in Singapore, was intended to run a hotel put up by Meydan Group. A settlement
clause in the deal offered referral of disagreements to the DIAC. The settlement verdict favored
Banyan Tree, founded on the illegal dissolution of the agreement. Nonetheless, Meydan Group
did not compensate the hotel operator as agreed, resulting in an application to the DIFC Court by
Banyan Tree so as the arbitral award would be acknowledged and enforced. Meydan Group
responded by submitting an application that challenged the judgment passed by the DIFC courts.
Rule
According to the Articles 42 and 43 of the DIFC Arbitration law No. 1 of 2008, the DIFC
courts have the power to identify and impose any arbitral award regardless of where it comes
from. This is also applicable in cases where the parties involved have no connection to the DIFC
(Blanke & Corm-Bakhos, 2014). The law for that reason spurs the DIFC courts by allowing its
judges to diagnose and put into effect any arbitral award, irrespective of the seat. Furthermore,
Article 7(3) of the DIFC Arbitration law gives any Emirate a go-ahead to issue regulation
essential for the conduct of its undertakings (Padley & Clutterham, 2016).
Application
There exist some outstanding fear that in a follow-on prosecution action, it is possible for
the Dubai Courts to depend on a public policy dispute to decline execution of a DIFC approved
the award. This argument does not hold any merit since according to Article 7(3) (c) of the
amended Judicial Authority Law, such an argument should not be awarded a public policy

BUSINESS LAW 3
exemption (de Moura, 2015). It is therefore debatable that if the Dubai Courts had to depend on a
public policy disagreement to decline implementation of a DIFC sanctioned award, it would
imply that they have dishonored their commitments as articulated in Article 7(3) (c). Moreover,
it is disputable that the revised Judicial Authority Law fails to offer a public policy exemption
specifically for the reason that if it did, this would be a desecration of the rule of mutual
confidence and acknowledgment of judgments, verdicts, and commands. It is worth noting that
the Judicial Authority Law clearly restricted any ground for an alternative by the Dubai as well
as DIFC Courts as a result of public policy. Thus inclining to a regime built on what can be
referred to as mutual trust as well as recognition in the execution of rulings, resolutions, and
commands arising from any other parallel court (Aljasmi, 2016).
Conclusion
The UAE public code should ensure that there is ratification of any award provided in
UAE by the UAE courts prior to its enforcement. This is because failure to do so will lead to a
prolonged and vexing process for the applicant, and as a result, there is a possibility that a
domineering judge might give merit to the original decision. This would not be a favorable
situation for any appellant, due to the fact that the party has already completed the court process
and emerged victorious to what they presumed to be an absolute decision. To sum up, the
petitioners in the Banyan Tree case may have been involved in a policy to by-pass the possibly
provocative endorsement course in the Dubai courts.

BUSINESS LAW 4
References:
Aljasmi, M. A. (2016). Challenging International Arbitration Awards in UAE Courts on Public
Policy Ground (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai (BUiD)).
Blanke, G., & Corm-Bakhos, S. (2014). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards in the UAE: Practice and Procedure. BCDR International Arbitration Review,
1(1), 3-27.
De Moura, K. Z. I. (2015). Critical analysis of the UAE Courts' reaction upon accession to the
New York Convention (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai (BUiD)).
Padley, M., & Clutterham, C. (2016). Common Pitfalls of Arbitration in the United Arab
Emirates: Interference and Enforcement. Journal of International Arbitration, 33(1), 83-
98.