Legal Analysis

The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitrator who suspends proceedings after unilaterally revising fees -- without party consent and without resigning -- automatically loses their mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled in SS Trading Company v. SNC Trading Company that an arbitrator cannot indefinitely keep an arbitration stalled while insisting on enhanced fees not agreed to by the parties.

The Court noted that although the arbitrator was dissatisfied with the fee payments, he neither resigned nor continued the hearings. Instead, he froze the proceedings until increased costs were paid. This, the Court said, had no statutory backing.

The dispute stemmed from a 2019 agreement, with a sole arbitrator appointed in September 2022. After repeated delays by the respondent, the arbitrator imposed penalties of ₹10,000 per hearing per party. On April 20, 2023, he declared the tribunal “suspended till funds are arranged”, citing an unworkably low quoted fee.

Despite objections to the unilateral hike and multiple requests to resume hearings, the arbitrator fixed no further dates after June 2, 2023. He also sought an apology from the claimant, but never stepped down.

The Court held that fee proposals must be mutually agreed, and if parties reject a proposed increase, the arbitrator may either resign or continue and later exercise a lien over the award under Section 39. Keeping proceedings in limbo, however, is impermissible.

Since the arbitrator did neither, the Court ruled that the mandate had expired under Sections 14, 15 and 29A, as his conduct showed an unwillingness to complete the proceedings without delay.

As the arbitration agreement remains valid, the Court directed Presolv360 to appoint a new sole arbitrator within two weeks. All hearings will be conducted online unless the parties decide otherwise, and the fresh tribunal will continue from the stage where proceedings were abandoned.

The Dubai Misdemeanours Court has sentenced an Asian man to a jail term after he was found guilty of possessing Dh2,000 obtained through an online apartment rental scam.

The incident occurred in March, when a victim -- also of Asian nationality -- lodged a complaint after being deceived by a fraudulent listing advertising an apartment for rent. After contacting the advertiser via Facebook, he transferred Dh2,000 as a reservation deposit.

According to the complaint, the defendant met the victim in person and showed him an apartment in Dubai’s Al Satwa district. Shortly afterwards, he switched off his phone and blocked the victim on WhatsApp and Facebook, leading the victim to realise he had been scammed.

Investigators later confirmed the listing was fake and created for the sole purpose of deception. A Dubai police officer testified that the Criminal Investigation Department traced the bank transfer, which ultimately led to the suspect’s arrest.

The investigation found that the man had been using a fabricated online profile to entice prospective tenants, sharing images of luxury apartments at attractive prices and exploiting residents’ search for affordable housing.

The court convicted him of possessing funds derived from electronic fraud and imposed a custodial sentence.

London-based Ashurst and US. firm Perkins Coie announced on Monday that they have agreed to merge, forming a combined practice of around 3,000 lawyers and generating $2.7 billion in revenue -- placing the new entity among the world’s top 20 law firms.

Perkins Coie, one of several firms that successfully challenged executive orders issued by U.S. President Donald Trump targeting them for perceived political associations, will join forces with Ashurst under the new name Ashurst Perkins Coie.

Ashurst’s global CEO Paul Jenkins told Reuters that merger talks began in February and were driven by a shared long-term vision. “From the outset, our conversations have focused on the future -- not just the next few years, but the decade ahead and beyond,” he said.

Perkins Coie managing partner Bill Malley said Ashurst expands the firm’s international footprint, adding that the merger strengthens their ability to provide seamless cross-border legal support. He noted the combined firm will be exceptionally positioned to serve clients across sectors such as technology, financial services, energy, and infrastructure.

Jenkins and Malley will serve as global co-CEOs of the merged firm, which will have 52 offices spanning 23 countries. Jenkins said there are currently no plans to add new locations.

The deal reflects a growing wave of transatlantic law-firm consolidation, following recent agreements such as Herbert Smith Freehills’ tie-up with Kramer Levin and the 2023 merger of Allen & Overy with Shearman & Sterling.

The merger remains subject to partner approval at both firms and, if approved, is expected to be finalized in late 2026.

Perkins Coie -- which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign -- was targeted earlier this year by a Trump executive order suspending security clearances for its employees and limiting their access to federal facilities and contracts. A federal judge overturned the order in May, though the administration is appealing. Similar orders issued against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey were also invalidated.

Saudi authorities are considering a proposal to introduce financial penalties for individuals or entities that misuse properties belonging to the Ministry of Finance or other government agencies under its supervision within the holy sites, without prior authorisation.

According to a report by the General Auditing Bureau, offenders would also be obligated to pay the full rental value of the property for the entire duration of the misuse.

The report highlights that all courts in the Kingdom are empowered to hear disputes arising from the enforcement of Resolution No. (62/M), which governs the use and revenue of state-owned properties -- an effort aimed at bolstering regulatory oversight and safeguarding public assets.

A dedicated committee has been established to identify properties being used without valid contracts and assess their on-site conditions within the holy sites and other government locations under the Ministry of Finance's authority.

The report further indicates that the necessary legal measures are currently being finalized to resolve these violations. This initiative forms part of the General Auditing Bureau’s broader strategy to enhance state property management, protect national resources, and prevent irregular practices that may lead to revenue loss or the misuse of sensitive areas within the holy sites.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a former employee to pay her previous employer Dh42,000 in compensation after she was found to have embezzled Dh36,900 in company funds entrusted to her under a power of attorney.

The court ruled that fault had been conclusively established and that the defendant’s misconduct directly caused financial harm to the plaintiff company.

According to court documents, the company filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh130,000 in compensation for material, moral, and emotional damages, in addition to the misappropriated amount, legal interest, fees, and costs.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant had worked for the company and embezzled a total of Dh86,000, for which she had already been convicted in a separate criminal case. That judgment was upheld on appeal and has become final. The defendant did not attend the civil proceedings despite receiving proper notification.

In its reasoning, the civil court noted that the company had previously filed a criminal complaint accusing the employee of embezzling Dh86,200 belonging to a one-person limited liability company -- funds that had been under her control as an agent. The criminal court convicted her, and the ruling was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Because the criminal judgment had reached finality, the civil court said it was bound by its findings on the question of fault and could not reassess liability. It therefore accepted that wrongdoing had been proven beyond doubt and that the defendant’s actions had caused measurable harm to her employer.

Compensation Adjusted to Dh42,000

Although the plaintiff sought Dh130,000 to cover material and moral damages, the court determined that the proven amount embezzled was Dh36,900, as confirmed by the appellate ruling and an expert report submitted by the plaintiff.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday that he would likely file a lawsuit against the BBC next week seeking as much as $5 billion, after the broadcaster admitted it had wrongly edited a video of a speech he delivered -- while insisting there was no legal basis for his claim.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been thrust into its most serious crisis in decades after two senior leaders resigned amid accusations of bias, including over the editing of Trump’s remarks from 6 January 2021, the day his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

Trump’s legal team had initially set a Friday deadline for the BBC to retract its documentary or face legal action for “no less” than $1 billion. They also demanded an apology and compensation for what they described as “overwhelming reputational and financial harm,” according to a letter seen by Reuters.

The BBC, which has conceded that its editing of Trump’s comments amounted to an “error of judgement,” issued a personal apology to the former president on Thursday. However, it said it would not rebroadcast the documentary and rejected the defamation claim.

“We’ll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he travelled to Florida for the weekend.

“I think I have to do that; I mean, they’ve even admitted that they cheated,” he said. “They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”

Trump said he had not discussed the issue with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer -- despite what he described as a solid relationship -- but planned to call him over the weekend. He claimed Starmer had attempted to reach him and was “very embarrassed” by the incident.

The documentary, broadcast on the BBC’s flagship programme Panorama, spliced together three separate clips from Trump’s speech, creating the impression that he was inciting the 6 January riot. His lawyers argued this was “false and defamatory.”

‘Beyond Fake -- This is Corrupt’

In an interview with the right-leaning UK channel GB News, Trump said the edit was “impossible to believe” and likened it to election interference.

“I made a beautiful statement, and they made it into a not beautiful statement,” he said. “Fake news was a great term, except it’s not strong enough. This is beyond fake, this is corrupt.”

He added that the BBC’s apology was insufficient: “When you say it’s unintentional, I guess if it’s unintentional you don’t apologise. They clipped together two parts of the speech that were nearly an hour apart. It’s incredible to depict the idea that I had given this aggressive speech which led to riots. One was making me into a bad guy, and the other was a very calming statement.”

BBC Apology, No Plans to Rebroadcast

BBC Chair Samir Shah issued a personal apology on Thursday to the White House and told MPs that the edit was “an error of judgement.”

On Friday, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the apology was “right and necessary.”

The broadcaster reiterated that it had no intention of rebroadcasting the documentary and confirmed it was examining fresh allegations about editing practices, including a separate instance involving its Newsnight programme.

Biggest Crisis in Decades

The controversy has escalated into the BBC’s most severe crisis in decades. Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness resigned this week over the fallout, amid accusations of bias and editorial failures.

Starmer told parliament on Wednesday that he supported a “strong and independent BBC” but insisted the corporation must “get its house in order.”

“Some would rather the BBC didn’t exist. Some of them are sitting up there,” he said, gesturing towards Conservative MPs.

“I’m not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever.”

The BBC -- founded in 1922 and funded primarily through a compulsory licence fee—now faces scrutiny over whether public money could be used to settle any legal claim.

Former media minister John Whittingdale said there would be “real anger” if licence fee revenue were used to pay damages.

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel seeking to declare a provision of the India–UAE extradition treaty illegal. Michel was extradited from Dubai in December 2018 and has remained in custody since then.

Michel had approached the Court challenging Article 17 of the 1999 extradition treaty between India and the UAE, which permits prosecution not only for offences forming the basis of extradition but also for “connected” offences.

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain heard the matter and observed that it would not issue a declaration in the abstract. The judges asked Michel to file a more comprehensive petition specifying the consequential reliefs he sought.

“What is the consequential relief which you want? We don’t grant simple declarations,” the Bench remarked, noting that the treaty had not been passed by Parliament and therefore could not be declared ultra vires like a statutory law.

The Court held that since the treaty is not a law enacted by Parliament, it cannot be struck down. “If you are being tried based on a provision, challenge it in appropriate proceedings,” the Bench said.

Michel was ultimately allowed to withdraw the plea, with his counsel, Advocate Aljo K Joseph, stating that a fresh petition with complete reliefs would be filed.

Michel, a British national, is accused of acting as a middleman to help AgustaWestland secure a contract from the then Congress-led government for supplying VVIP helicopters. He allegedly entered into a dozen contracts with the manufacturer to legitimise kickbacks amounting to €42.27 million. The CBI claims that bribes worth about US$33 million were routed through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.

A key plank of Michel’s withdrawn plea was that Indian agencies could not rely on Article 17 of the treaty, as it violated Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which bars prosecution for offences beyond those listed in the extradition decree. The petition argued that Indian investigators invoked Section 467 of the IPC, an offence carrying life imprisonment, through supplementary chargesheets even though it was not included in the Dubai extradition order.

Michel also contended that he has already completed the maximum possible sentence for the offences for which he was extradited and that his continued detention was unlawful.

According to the petition, the original 2017 CBI chargesheet booked him under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which at the time carried a maximum sentence of five years. It further argued that his incarceration -- including the period spent in custody during extradition proceedings in the UAE -- already exceeds this statutory limit.

The Dubai Court of Appeal has upheld a life sentence against an Arab man convicted of murdering his friend following a violent argument inside his home in the Jumeirah area. The court also ruled that he must be deported upon completing his sentence.

The case dates back to October 2022, when a woman notified police about a suspected killing in an apartment at Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR). She told investigators that she had visited the accused in hospital earlier that day, where he appeared distressed and urged her to check on their mutual friend at his apartment.

When she entered the residence, she discovered the victim lying motionless on the floor, covered in blood and wrapped in bedsheets. Shocked by the gruesome scene, she immediately alerted the authorities.

Police officers arrived to find clear signs of a violent confrontation. The suspect, however, had already discharged himself from the hospital and vanished from his home. A manhunt was launched, and his father was summoned for questioning.

The father told investigators that his son’s behaviour had deteriorated in recent months. He added that the victim had visited the accused on the day of the incident, during which a heated dispute broke out between the two. He said he had left the house during the argument but later received a troubling call from his son confessing that he had assaulted his friend, who had died from his injuries. The accused also revealed his intention to escape the country.

Police traced him to a hotel in another emirate, where he was preparing to leave the UAE with assistance from his brother. He was arrested and referred to the Dubai Public Prosecution, which charged him with premeditated murder.

The Dubai Criminal Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed the verdict in full, including his deportation after serving the sentence.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has ratified a revised criminal procedures law after parliament amended several contentious articles in response to his earlier objections, the presidency announced.

According to the president’s office, the House of Representatives adjusted the disputed provisions in a manner that “avoids the reasons for the objection, increases the guarantees for the protection of public rights and freedoms, responds to practical considerations, and achieves clarity.”

Al-Sisi had returned the draft law to parliament in September, raising concerns over articles related to the sanctity of the home, the rights of the accused, and the need for broader alternatives to pre-trial detention.

The new law will come into force on 1 October 2026, marking the start of the next judicial year. The transition period is intended to give judges, prosecutors, police officers, and lawyers sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the updated provisions.

Key amendments reinforce constitutional protections for private homes and clearly define the exceptional circumstances under which they may be entered. The law also regulates the presence of lawyers during the questioning of suspects whose lives may be at risk and expands safeguards for those held pending interrogation.

A notable reform is the increase in alternatives to pre-trial detention from three to seven. These include restricting an accused person’s movement to a designated area, prohibiting contact with specific individuals, and temporarily confiscating firearms.

Aligning with recommendations from the foreign ministry’s Supreme Standing Committee for Human Rights, the revised law requires cases involving pre-trial detention to be reviewed by the public prosecutor every three months to ensure timely progress of investigations.

The legislation also maintains traditional methods of notifying parties to a case while incorporating modern information technology options, to be used whenever available. Defendants in felony cases tried in absentia will gain the right to a one-time postponement of their appeal hearing to enable them to attend.

The presidency said the changes constitute “an important addition to the guarantees for the protection of human rights,” reduce reliance on pre-trial detention, and accelerate investigative and trial procedures while safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

The United Arab Emirates has referred several suspects to the competent judicial authorities after completing an extensive investigation into a foiled attempt to smuggle military equipment destined for the Port Sudan Authority.

In its statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed the UAE’s firm stance against the misuse of its land, sea, or airspace for any illegal activity, particularly the trafficking of weapons to parties involved in Sudan’s ongoing conflict or to any other volatile region. The Ministry stressed that the UAE is committed to preventing its territory from being exploited as a transit point for activities that could fuel instability or escalate armed conflicts.

Authorities highlighted that the action follows a rigorous investigative process and reflects the country’s strong legal and enforcement framework. The UAE applies stringent monitoring and compliance standards under its national legislation governing weapons, ammunition, dual-use items, and military equipment. These laws impose strict licensing requirements for import, export, transit, and trade involving such materials. Violations may result in severe penalties, including imprisonment, substantial fines, and -- in cases involving threats to national security --long-term or life sentences.

The UAE’s legal regime further criminalises all forms of smuggling through ports of entry, and enforcement agencies maintain wide powers to inspect, seize, and investigate attempts to transport prohibited or unlicensed goods. Courts may impose penalties not only for smuggling itself but also for any associated acts, such as conspiracy, facilitation, or failure to obtain mandatory permits.

The Ministry noted that the UAE’s approach is aligned with its international obligations, including cooperation frameworks aimed at combating transnational organised crime, arms trafficking, and violations related to conflict-zone resupply. Officials underscored the importance of coordinated efforts with regional and international partners, stressing that collaboration, intelligence-sharing, and joint enforcement actions remain essential to preventing illicit activities that undermine security and stability.

The UAE reaffirmed that it will continue to work closely with its global counterparts to reinforce oversight mechanisms, enhance border security protocols, and ensure that any attempt to transport military materiel unlawfully is intercepted and prosecuted. The case, now referred to trial, demonstrates the country’s determination to uphold the rule of law and maintain its role as a responsible partner in safeguarding regional and international peace.