In Egypt, while there are many dispute resolution methods available for users, arbitration and litigation are the most frequently used. This stems from the preference of commercial players to opt for mechanisms that can lead to final, binding and enforceable rulings or awards.

Opting for such mechanisms is also sometimes used for signalling purposes; the claimant’s purpose is to communicate to the respondent that the former is both serious and willing to invest in a somewhat lengthy process that would ultimately lead to a final, binding and enforceable outcome. In some cases, the respondent is incentivised to explore an amicable settlement that could lead to a commercially sensible outcome and, simultaneously, avoid unnecessary expenses.

Other dispute resolution methods available but not frequently used in Egypt include mediation and conciliation.

Arbitration comes first for complex, technical disputes. For instance, in construction disputes, arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution mechanism because it offers the parties an expert-friendly avenue for resolving their dispute. In addition to party-appointed experts, arbitral tribunals can, if needed, appoint their own experts to aid in reaching findings concerning technical matters. The choice of arbitrators can be heavily influenced by the nature of the dispute and the sector within which the dispute arises. However, the costs associated with arbitration can sometimes stand in the way of a party who wishes to pursue a claim, especially when that party is not in a position to finance costly arbitration proceedings. In some instances, when working on construction arbitration in the UAE involving high-quantum, technically complex claims and counterclaims, the authors have seen clients feeling exhausted at the end of the arbitration proceedings and thus not being mentally/psychologically open to other similar arbitrations. This is especially so if disputing parties reach a settlement after years and years of battling claims and counterclaims in arbitration.

After arbitration, litigation is the next choice. This is especially so for parties who do not have technically complex claims to pursue and argue, and/or who are not willing or able to finance and invest in lengthy, expensive arbitration proceedings. Concerning litigation, the main con, in the authors’ opinion, is the quality-divergent performance of different court circuits. For many decades there has been a lack of consistency regarding the quality of judges. Further, at times there has been a divergence in the position taken by different court circuits in relation to both procedural and substantive legal issues. This causes a lack of confidence in the choice of litigation as it considerably minimises the ability to predict the outcome prior to launching a court case.

Party-to-party settlement negotiations come in at third place. These could take place with or without the involvement of counsel. Disputes have been resolved as a result of direct settlement negotiations, and there are other situations where, as a result of the considerable deterioration of the relationship between the disputing parties, the involvement of counsel led to positive conclusion of the relevant disputes.

Disputing parties are acting more reasonably. This could be the result of the desire to reach a swift conclusion to the underlying dispute, as well as the keenness to avoid unnecessary expenses.

Arbitration is also being used not only in relation to highly technical matters in fields such as oil and gas, construction and infrastructure, but also in distribution and general trade matters.

At the same time, large companies are expressing a strong desire to avoid lengthy, expensive arbitration proceedings in favour of relatively faster litigation proceedings. In some cases, such a desire has played a considerable role in the shaping of legal strategies to be adopted whether in pursuing a claim or defending one. For example, acting out of the desire to avoid lengthy, expensive arbitration proceedings, some clients make the informed decision to waive an arbitration agreement and, thereby, render an otherwise inadmissible litigation claim admissible.

Recently, confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is not being treated as seriously as before. This is especially so in complex disputes with a network of contracts and agreements where not all relevant parties are contracting parties to all such contracts and agreements. In short, whenever the stakes are high, parties purse the same claims simultaneously in different fora and against different parties; all done with the goal of maximising the chances of recovery. This phenomenon requires specialised dispute resolution practitioners who are able to handle arbitration and litigation work with the same level of quality and skill. 

In Egypt, there are various limitation periods that frequently pop up and, therefore, must be kept in mind. For commercial debts, the statutory period is seven years from the date on which the debt crystalises. For administrative disputes, a distinction must be made between cases seeking the cancellation of an administrative decree and cases seeking to bring a contractual claim pursuant to an administrative contract. With respect to the former, the general rule provides for a 60-day limitation period. However, certain nuances apply and must, therefore, be considered when examining any given cancellation claim. With respect to the latter, the general rule provides for a 15-year limitation period.

As for civil claims, a distinction must be made between claims based in tort and contractual claims. For claims based in tort, the general rule provides for a limitation period of three years. Concerning contractual claims, the general rule provides for 15 years.

In Egypt, there are different judicial bodies with different scopes of jurisdiction. These are ordinary courts, administrative courts, and the Supreme Constitutional Court.

Ordinary courts have wide jurisdiction to hear and decide a wide array of cases, including criminal, civil, commercial, employment and personal status-related cases. Within ordinary courts, there exist specialised courts, such as the economic courts, which were introduced in Egypt in 2008 and have gained traction as specialised, fast-paced courts that deal with certain types of commercial disputes that stem from the application of exhaustively listed laws. Labour courts are another example of specialised courts within the realm of ordinary courts that have gained a reputation for being employee-friendly.

Administrative courts are, on the other hand, courts within the Egyptian State Council, which have jurisdiction to hear and decide on administrative disputes of all types, including disputes concerning the validity of administrative decrees and disputes concerning the validity, interpretation, implementation, termination and/or rescission of administrative contracts. These courts have, throughout the last decades, gained a reputation of being state-friendly, and investors dealing with the Egyptian government have been known to be in favour of arbitration as their dispute-resolution mechanism of choice. The Egyptian state’s response has been to issue decrees aiming to encourage the use of courts by placing procedural obstacles in the face of the conclusion of arbitration agreements in the context of contracts concluded with the Egyptian state and/or state-owned or -controlled entities. The legitimacy of such decrees have been questioned but there have not been any court rulings that confirm the stance of Egyptian courts in relation to such decrees.

Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court sits at the top of the judicial structure in Egypt. Its role includes to decide on challenges directed against the constitutionality of laws and regulations.

There are scattered statutory provisions in various Egyptian laws that impose pre-action conduct requirements on the party seeking to bring forth a claim. As such, it is of paramount importance that clients engage experienced practitioners with in-depth knowledge of the laws of Egypt when contemplating to pursue a claim before Egyptian courts.

For instance, the Egyptian Civil Code requires a creditor to serve a notice on the debtor of the debt and of the creditor’s intention to pursue a claim in front of the appropriate forum. However, failure to abide by such a requirement does not lead to the inadmissibility of the case. It rather leads to certain consequences, such as the inability to claim interest except from the date on which the claim is properly filed before the relevant forum.

Another example can be found in the law regulating the State Council (ie, the administrative courts). In certain cases, this law requires the party intending to pursue a dispute before administrative courts to first file a petition either to the authority that issued the relevant decree or to a higher administrative authority. The intended purpose is to reduce administrative disputes that make it to court by allowing administrative authorities the opportunity to swiftly act in a manner that leads to the conclusion of the dispute. However, in practice, this pre-action requirement only leads to some delay as it is rare in practice that petitions lead to any positive resolution of administrative disputes.

The main stages of court proceedings in Egypt are first instance, appeal and cassation stages. First instance and appeal proceedings are to a large extent similar in terms of the time that is exhausted until a ruling is issued. This is simply because appeals in Egypt lead to de novo proceedings and, hence, disputing parties get a chance to re-argue their respective positions, as well as to raise new arguments and/or submit new evidence. In general, first instance and appeal proceedings can each take anywhere between six and 14 months in matters that do not require the involvement of court-appointed experts. In technically heavy matters that require the appointment of experts by court, proceedings in each of the first instance and appeal levels could take anywhere between 16 and 24 months.

The cassation stage is the last stage available to disputing parties and stage is limited to arguing issues of law; hence, the disputing parties are not free to re-argue issues of fact and evidence. To succeed, the challenging party must establish that the challenged ruling has erred in the application of the law. To do so, the challenging party can cite facts and evidence only to the extent necessary to formulate the error-in-application-of-law argument(s). Cassation challenges could take anywhere between four and 24 months for the issuance of a ruling on the merits. This wide window of time makes it less attractive for parties to pursue cassation challenges unless there is a strong incentive for doing so, especially considering that the filing of a cassation challenge does not automatically lead to the suspension of the enforcement of the challenged appeal ruling.

In Egypt, court proceedings are, pursuant to the general norms, public. However, Egyptian law allows Egyptian courts to exercise discretionary power in deciding whether to deviate from the general norm and to rather opt for closed, confidential hearings. In practice, courts do not opt for closed, confidential hearings unless some serious considerations justify such a decision.

Interim relief is available for disputing parties fighting a case in front of Egyptian courts. There is no exhaustive list of interim measures/relief that could be granted by courts. Instead, Egyptian law provides for:

• the principle that courts could grant interim relief that aims at, for example, maintaining the status quo, protecting evidence; and
• examples, and not an exhaustive list, of interim relief that could be granted by Egyptian courts.

The authors find the above approach to be a positive, practical one as it allows courts in Egypt to remain open to considering applications for interim relief, the circumstances surrounding the application, and whether, if new, the sought-after interim relief is justified.

While commonly sought, interim relief is rarely granted by Egyptian courts and this forms a real, considerable disadvantage to resorting to Egyptian courts, as parties, especially commercial ones, are often strategic and wish to secure some sort of interim relief to occupy some ground and/or create an incentive for the other party to compromise and settle.

Specific performance is a key final relief available to a litigant in commercial litigation. However, specific performance is not always available and/or granted and therefore compensation becomes the real type of final relief that is commonly targeted by litigants.

Further, if specific performance is not the number one priority, a litigant could want to seek termination or rescission of the contract from which the dispute stems. Pursuant to Egyptian law, terminating or rescinding a contract does not prevent a litigant from claiming compensation. Hence, unless there exist strategic legal reasons that would call for a different claims formulation and strategy, it is common in practice for a claimant to seek termination or rescission of the underlying contract, coupled with a compensation claim.

Pursuant to Egyptian law, compensation extends in scope to cover both incurred losses and foregone profits. It also extends to cover material and moral damages. Egyptian courts assess damages by examining the evidence submitted by the disputing parties and, with the aid of expert evidence/input (if necessary), proceed to reach a finding on the quantum that mirrors incurred losses and foregone profits. In practice, disputing parties face the greater difficulty in substantiating foregone profits. Some disputing parties and/or their counsel are not at the required level of sophistication that enables them to advise their clients on the required evidence and/or to guide their clients in the process of locating and safeguarding available evidence and submitting it in a form that is accessible by court.

Arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is quite common in Egypt. In particular, parties dealing with technically complex matters tend to favour arbitration as it allows them to more readily present expert evidence and testimony. However, at times of economic depression, parties tend to avoid arbitration and/or to treat it as a last resort. This is due to financial priorities and the lack of liquidity to be invested in lengthy, expensive arbitration proceedings.

Disputes stemming from construction contracts, transfer of technology agreements, and share purchase agreements are commonly referred to arbitration in Egypt. There is also a growing preference for arbitration in straightforward commercial dealings, such as procurement, distribution and the like.

In Egypt, certain types of disputes cannot be referred to arbitration. These disputes include criminal matters, personal status matters and employment matters. As such, lawyers involved in the drafting of arbitration agreements, whether these are drafted as arbitration clauses embedded within an underlying contract or as stand-alone agreements that refer to a certain legal relationship, must always be cautious of the issue of arbitrability so that the contracting parties are well informed, at the time of drafting and conclusion of the relevant arbitration agreement, of the actual prospects of having a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement that they can act upon and utilise if a dispute arises in the future.

Further, Egyptian law provides for some scattered statutory restrictions on the use of arbitration. These include, for instance, the requirement that agreements to arbitrate disputes arising from administrative contracts, in order to be valid, must be approved by the competent minister. Another example is the statutory restriction on the use of arbitration in the context of disputes stemming from transfer of technology agreements; Egyptian law requires that such arbitrations be seated in Egypt and are resolved by the application of Egyptian law to the merits of the dispute.

In Egypt, the use of arbitration is perceived as highly advantageous in situations where disputes involve a high level of technicality in relation to the substance/merits of the dispute. The considerably wider space for the utilisation of expert evidence in arbitrations is evidently a real advantage to arbitration. Disputing parties have the ability to engage highly specialised experts to provide expert evidence, and the arbitral tribunal itself has the discretion to resort to the appointment of tribunal-appointed experts if a need to do so arises. The choice of arbitrators themselves sitting on the tribunal is frequently influenced by the sector within which the dispute arises as well as the nature and level of complexity of the dispute.

The main disadvantages of the use of arbitration in Egypt, as well as in the GCC area, are costs and time. Clients frequently complain about the high level of costs involved in arbitrations (especially those lasting for long durations and involving highly technical issues of substance/merits). Clients also frequently complain about the lengthy nature of arbitration proceedings. These, among other potential disadvantages, play a key role in guiding the disputing parties’ approach and strategy in pursuing or defending a claim, as well as in the choice of forum (if such a choice exists). 

In Egypt, the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration is the only real choice available to parties wishing to resort to an arbitration institution with a considerable level of reputation and experience managing cases, as well as an institution that has a physical presence within the country. Parties are becoming more open to considering arbitration institutions in the UAE as an alternative to Egypt.

Depending on the level of complexity of the underlying dispute, arbitration proceedings can vary in length between eight months and 24 months, considering that the period starts running from the date on which the composition of the arbitral tribunal is complete.

In Egypt, the Egyptian Arbitration Law No 27 of 1994 (as amended) is the key piece of legislation concerning arbitration. It applies equally to national/local arbitrations and international commercial arbitrations. In addition to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, there exist some scattered statutory provisions in various Egyptian laws that touch upon and regulate certain issues that are of relevance to arbitration and arbitration practitioners.

In essence, Egyptian courts’ key powers to support arbitration comprise of:

• the power to compel parties to honour their valid arbitration agreement (by declaring inadmissible claims that are filed in front of the judiciary in breach of an existing, valid arbitration agreement);
• the power to hear and decide on applications for interim relief that are submitted prior to the full composition of the arbitration tribunal hearing a given arbitration case;
• rejecting unsubstantiated nullity actions of arbitral awards; and
• the prompt processing of applications seeking the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Egypt.

An Egyptian court would intervene in an arbitration in situations including one where the arbitration agreement is null and void and, thus, the legal basis for valid arbitration proceedings is missing. Further, Egyptian courts have the power and jurisdiction to hear and decide on nullity actions of arbitral awards, provided that the arbitration is seated in Egypt or the arbitration proceedings, despite taking place outside of Egypt, are subjected, by virtue of the parties’ agreement, to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Egyptian courts could also intervene if, for example, if a disputing party resorts to court seeking the recusal of an appointed arbitrator on the basis of a substantiated argument; the court’s intervention takes the form of recusing the relevant arbitrator and, thus, forcing a correction of the proceedings.

Akin to the court’s power to issue interim relief, arbitral tribunals have the power to grant interim relief if the applicant is successful in proving (i) urgency, (ii) a likelihood to succeed on the merits, and (iii) the granting of the sought-after interim relief would not impact the merits and does not require an examination of anything but the surface of the available evidence.

There are no restrictions on an arbitral tribunal’s power to grant interim relief. However, even if granted, the party in whose favour interim relief is ordered would still, in the face of non-voluntary compliance/enforcement by the party against whom interim relief is granted, have to resort to courts seeking a court order or ruling granting enforcement of the interim relief granted by the arbitral tribunal.

In Egypt, apart from litigation and arbitration, formal ADR procedures available for resolving commercial disputes include mediation and conciliation.

In Egypt, there are no formal requirements for parties to engage in ADR. Hence, only parties that have an adequate understanding of the potential benefits of resorting to ADR show interest in exploring these.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

ADR usually takes place prior to the initiation of a dispute before courts or arbitration, or right after launching a case before courts or arbitration but before any real progress is made in the litigation or arbitration case. Seeing that engaging in ADR does not stop limitation periods running, parties are incentivised to engage in ADR immediately after a dispute crystalises or, if the dispute has been in existence for some time, right after the lodging of a litigation or arbitration case (as the lodging of such a case would have the impact of causing running limitation periods to be interrupted/suspended or cut-off).

Arbitration is confidential, and confidentiality is explicitly provided for in the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Mediation and conciliation, on the hand, are not regulated by law and, thus, any confidentiality that is provided for in the rules of institutions are not perceived as being a real guarantee of confidentiality.

In arbitration, each party is expected to cover their own costs until the arbitral tribunal issues its final award and, as part of the dispositive part of the award, decide on the issue of allocation of costs between the disputing parties. In practice, arbitral tribunals rarely grant the winning party all its costs. It is common for arbitral tribunals to grant the winning party a portion of its costs. Hence, parties which pursue claims or counterclaims in arbitration are incentivised to efficiently manage their costs so as not to end up having to swallow a portion of such costs without being able to enforce all costs against the losing party.

Egyptian courts have recently shown a tendency to limit nullifying arbitral awards except in situations where there exists a clear situation that substantiates the nullity of arbitral awards as exhaustively listed in the Egyptian Arbitration Law. While this is in line with the “pro-arbitration” image that local courts in many jurisdictions seek, the authors’ opinion is that Egyptian courts should approach each case with its own particulars; this is meant to guarantee that a balance is maintained between the need for protecting arbitration proceedings and the achievement of a legally sound conclusion to the relevant dispute.

The regulation of legal fees in Egypt is quite flexible and, thus, leaves the matter to the agreement of the parties (ie, the lawyer and their client). Accordingly, the engagement of lawyers can be on the basis of fixed fee, pure success fee, or a hybrid arrangement comprising of a partial fixed fee and a success fee. However, contrary to the situation in arbitration, cost recovery in litigation is not an effective, realistic goal. Courts do not grant the winning party its costs or even a fraction thereof; thus, disputing parties have become accustomed to the idea that each party covers its own costs.

In the context of litigation, third-party funding is permissible and does exist. Courts do not enquire about the sources of funding used by disputing parties and disputing parties themselves do not raise objections and/or issues concerning such matter. This contradicts with the situation in arbitrations, whether local or international, where the issue of third-party funding has justifiably attracted considerable attention.

Contingency fee arrangements are available in Egypt. However, there is no express statutory provision which regulates such arrangements and dictates certain acceptable parameters for such arrangements. Hence, it is common to find lawyers engaged in relation to any given matter on the basis of a fixed fee, a pure success fee, or a hybrid arrangement that combines elements of fixed and success fee arrangements.

In practice, insurance coverage is not available and/or utilised by disputing parties for litigation, arbitration and ADR. For litigation, court fees that claimants have to pay when filing a court case are frequently nominal monetary amounts. Hence, parties seeking to pursue a claim in litigation do not tend to think about the issue of financing court fees to get their case lodged with court. However, court fees that are calculated at the end of a court case can possibly be quite high depending on the value of the claim that was rejected by court and, thus, the authors are of the opinion that securing insurance coverage could be a smart way of exercising damage control and mitigating damages.

Dispute resolution costs cannot be recovered from the other side in Egypt unless such costs have been taken into consideration by the court and included in the amount of compensation that is granted in the dispositive part of a court’s ruling. In this respect, there is a very low likelihood that Egyptian courts would agree to factor litigation costs as part of the incurred damages for which compensation is granted as litigation costs are arguably not “direct” damages that flow from the breach.

If an Egyptian court agrees to factor litigation costs into the monetary amount granted as compensation, then the court should ascertain whether the winning party has actually incurred these costs. In other words, courts cannot grant compensation for potential costs; they must be definite costs.

The key types of interim relief granted by Egyptian courts are those meant to protect the status quo by ordering a party to abstain from doing one or more specific acts. The most common example is summary orders or rulings issued by courts ordering a party to abstain from liquidating on-demand bonds, or to abstain from releasing money and/or goods to a specific party.

In Egypt, the current reality reflects a considerably low chance of success for applications for interim relief whether generally or in support of arbitration or ADR. This reality affects how disputing parties consider Egypt as a choice of forum for litigation and/or ADR. In order to be a truly arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, Egyptian courts should, in the authors’ opinion, reconsider their stance in this respect so that the appropriate interim relief is granted whenever the particulars of a matter justifies the granting of such interim relief. 

In the majority of cases that the authors have seen in practice, applications for interim relief are generally made and pursued prior to the initiation of a substantive case (whether before courts or arbitral tribunals). In some cases, circumstances that occur and evidence that is uncovered during a dispute incentivise disputing parties to resort to courts seeking interim relief.

In litigation, there are no applications for security for costs submitted to Egyptian courts. However, in arbitrations seated in Egypt and/or governed by the Egyptian Arbitration Law, these are increasingly seen to be used for different strategic reasons.

Arbitral tribunals rarely grant applications for security for costs. However, it is expected that arbitral tribunals will gradually become accustomed to the idea of granting such applications in light of their practical importance, provided of course that the particulars of the matter justify the granting of such applications. 

A disputing party can apply for interim injunctions. However, unlike other jurisdictions, it is not legally admissible to apply for an anti-suit injunction before Egyptian courts. For instance, a party that wishes to prevent an opposing party from resorting to courts due to the existence of an arbitration clause would have to wait until an opposing party does actually resort to courts and then the former could opt to appear before court to raise and submit arguments and defences, including those relating to the inadmissibility of the case due to the existence of an arbitration agreement.

In Egypt, interim injunctions are typically granted prior to the initiation of a substantive dispute or during an ongoing dispute.

In Egypt, a party can apply for summary judgment before trial. Egyptian courts would normally refuse to grant such an application unless court is confident, based on a surface-based review of the available evidence, that there exists a state of urgency, as well as that the applicant party would likely prevail in a substantive case.

Class actions are not prohibited in Egyptian law. However, the practice of Egyptian courts has resulted in narrowing the scope within which class actions are actually utilised in Egypt. According to Egyptian case law, two or more individuals or legal persons (such as companies) can bring forward a class action against one or more defendants, provided that the claimants can prove that they enjoy the same legal position that justifies the filing of a class action.

The individuals or legal persons acting as claimants in a class action must, in order to be found to have standing to sue in the relevant case, prove that they enjoy the same legal position as the other claimants. Further, such legal position must be found to have been affected or potentially affected by the legal or material act in relation to which the class action is filed.

Akin to the general position under Egyptian law, relief available in class actions could comprise of specific performance and/or compensation. If the class action targets the cancellation of an administrative decree, then the relief available would grant the cancellation of the challenged administrative decree and/or compensation.

There have been no class actions and/or mass claims brought in arbitration in the last decade. This is because disputes that normally involve two or more parties acting as claimant, such as labour disputes, are pursued in litigation due to the existence of mandatory provisions that render such disputes non-arbitrable.

There are no key identifiable trends in class actions and mass claims in Egypt.

In arbitration, disclosure of documents is commonly regulated by the IBA Guidelines on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (which, pursuant to the international stance, are commonly accepted by practitioners and users of arbitration). It is safe to say that document production requests have become the norm in the majority of arbitrations for various strategic reasons. Arbitral tribunals sitting in arbitration cases governed by Egyptian law decide on document production requests using the internationally-accepted criteria of proportionality and relevance. Based on the foregoing, a duty of disclosure does exist. However, if a party opts not to comply with the arbitral tribunal’s order, the tribunal’s reaction would be to flag that non-compliance opens the door for the tribunal to make a negative inference. However, whether or not a negative inference is made by an arbitral tribunal depends on the relevant particulars; in other words, non-compliance should not be understood to automatically result in a negative inference being made against the non-complying party.

In litigation, the scope of document production requests is considerably narrower than that in arbitration. This stems from the strict statutory provisions of the Egyptian Law of Evidence. Unless the applicant party successfully checks all the boxes that are required under the aforementioned law, courts would refuse to grant the production order. If a production order is granted and the ordered party opts not to comply, a court could fine the latter for non-compliance and/or make a negative inference.

Privilege is not regulated by virtue of express statutory provisions of Egyptian law. As such, the issue of privilege becomes a matter of contract law and stems from the agreement of the parties. Hence, documents cannot be withheld on grounds of privilege if the party in whose favour the production order is issued is not party to the agreement providing for privilege. 

If there exists a statutory provision of Egyptian law that grants the ordering and/or requesting party the right to request disclosure, no right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality would exist.

Witness evidence is commonly presented in arbitration cases. Disputing parties frequently rely on fact witnesses to support relevant facts that are not heavily covered by virtue of written evidence. Arbitral tribunals have grown accustomed to the idea of fact witnesses in arbitrations and to the methodology of dealing with such witnesses. It is common practice that fact witnesses first write witness statements that are submitted as factual exhibits along with counsel’s legal submissions, and are then expected to attend the hearing on the merits so that both opposing party and the arbitral tribunal get to address questions they may have to the witnesses.

In litigation, witness testimony is frequent in criminal matters as criminal courts have a wider level of discretion and are free to build their own conviction based on the level of confidence that they have in the available evidence (including witness testimony). However, in civil and commercial disputes, witness testimony is rarely used.

Expert evidence has become an integral part of any arbitration case that involves technical issues (such as construction disputes, transfer of technology agreements, etc). Experts can either be party-appointed or tribunal-appointed. However, it is frequent in practice to see party-appointed experts (as arbitral tribunal rarely opt to exercise their right to appoint experts themselves unless there exists a dire need to do so). Like witnesses, experts owe their duties to the arbitral tribunal and, thus, must always take that into consideration when drafting their expert reports and when appearing at hearings before the tribunal and being cross-examined by opposing counsel. The duties of an expert are basically to be truthful and not to deliberately seek to waste the tribunal’s time.

In order to have a foreign judgment recognised and enforced in Egypt, the party benefiting from such recognition and enforcement would have to submit an application to the first instance court within which geographical area of jurisdiction enforcement is sought. The application is submitted to court in the same way that a case writ is filed before court. Prior to accepting such an application, Egyptian courts should ensure that:

• Egyptian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide on the same dispute;
• the foreign court that issued the judgment has jurisdiction to do so pursuant to such court’s laws;
• due process has been observed;
• the foreign judgment has, pursuant to the laws of the foreign court that issued the ruling, possessed res judicata, and
• the foreign judgment does not contain anything that violates or contradicts with Egyptian public order and/or a judgment or order previously issued by an Egyptian court.

Domestic arbitral awards are enforced by virtue of a court order that is issued approving the winning party’s application for the issuance of a writ of execution for the relevant award. In order for such applications to be accepted, Egyptian courts should, in addition to ascertaining that all required documents are presented, ensure that the relevant award does not contain anything that contradicts Egyptian public order and/or mandatory statutory provisions of Egyptian law.

Akin to domestic arbitral awards, foreign arbitral awards are enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Hence, the same process and requirements apply. 

Enforcement proceedings typically consume a lengthy period of time and could be anywhere between 16 and 32 months. These proceedings often get more complicated if assets are difficult to locate and, accordingly, bankruptcy proceedings are pursued against the losing party.

The most common and successful ground is that of public order and mandatory provisions of Egyptian law. To succeed, the losing party must prove that the arbitral award contains violations of Egyptian public order and/or mandatory provisions of Egyptian law. However, it should be noted in this respect that it is a well-established principle that courts would not reject the total enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award except in situations where all the items of relief granted in the dispositive part of the foreign judgment or award contradict Egyptian public order and/or mandatory provisions of Egyptian law. As such, if the violation can be localised and separated from the rest of the relief granted in the dispositive part of the foreign judgment or award, then an Egyptian court should grant partial enforcement.

The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution is not regulated in Egypt. However, Egyptian courts, arbitral tribunals and practitioners are carefully monitoring worldwide developments in this area and prudent parties are being careful in their use of artificial intelligence to avoid any negative consequences. We expect that international soft law instruments would be the ones to first regulate the use of artificial intelligence, and that Egyptian legislation tackling and regulating this area may not be forthcoming in the near future.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

Egyptian courts are yet to take an official stance concerning the use of AI as a means to improve efficiency. However, many Egyptian judges are keen on utilising AI and on staying up to date with the fast-paced developments in this area. While it is difficult to make accurate predictions concerning the use of AI in dispute resolution and how such use will evolve in Egypt, we are of the opinion that, in light of cases that are reported on in international mediums of press and media, prudent parties (whether judges, arbitrators, counsel, experts, etc) would, in the coming period, approach the use of AI with a great level of care so that the potential benefits of such use would not be countered with court-imposed sanctions and/or any other potential legal ramification.