On 27 November 2025, the President of the Court of Cassation at the Dubai Courts issued Decision No. (16) of 2025 concerning the regulation of procedures for petitions to reconsider final decisions and judgments issued by the Court of Cassation. This decision is based on Article (190) of Federal Decree-Law No. (42) of 2022 on the Civil Procedure Law, as well as Decision No. (11) of 2023 establishing a special judicial panel to review reconsideration petitions.

The decision aims to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework governing reconsideration before the Court of Cassation, noting that this is an exceptional judicial stage permissible only under narrowly defined conditions. Its objective is to preserve the stability of final judgments while ensuring justice when serious grounds arise that justify reconsideration.

Key Provisions of the Decision

• A special judicial panel is designated, composed of five judges who did not participate in issuing the judgment sought to be reconsidered, thereby ensuring impartiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

• A strict time limit is set: a petition for reconsideration or a referral may not be submitted more than one year from the date the final decision or judgment was issued.

• The petition must be signed by a lawyer admitted before the Court of Cassation, and a security deposit of AED 200,000 must be paid. The deposit is refundable only if the petition is accepted. This requirement reinforces the seriousness of the process and limits misuse of the right to litigate.

• The President of the Court is granted the authority to initiate a referral for reconsideration, particularly in cases where petitions submitted by the parties are rejected, thereby upholding procedural fairness when circumstances warrant judicial review.

This decision represents a significant step in developing the higher-justice framework in Dubai. It reinforces the exceptional nature of reconsideration, recognizing that final judgments issued by the Court of Cassation are inherently conclusive. Nevertheless, federal law permits reconsideration within a narrow scope when specific grounds are met. Decision No. (16) of 2025 fills a procedural gap by clearly defining how petitions are to be submitted, the competent authority, and the applicable financial and temporal requirements.

Moreover, the requirement of a substantial security deposit aligns with the nature of this judicial stage, serving as a safeguard against frivolous petitions while preserving litigants’ opportunities when a fundamental error warrants review. The establishment of a dedicated panel to hear such petitions also enhances confidence in the judicial process by ensuring the independence of the panel from the chamber that issued the original judgment.

It is also noteworthy that the decision remains consistent with the general rules of the Civil Procedure Law, as it provides for the application of those rules in the absence of a specific governing provision, thereby offering legislative flexibility without compromising the core regulatory purpose.