## Facts

- The parties entered a commercial contracting agreement that contained an arbitration agreement within it.
- The appellant (plaintiff) signed the contracting agreement that included the arbitration agreement.
- A dispute later arose between the parties under the contracting agreement.
- The parties referred the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement.
- Arbitration was conducted before an arbitral tribunal.
- The appellant attended the arbitration proceedings and was represented by an attorney.
- The arbitral tribunal issued an arbitral award.
- After the award, the appellant sought judicial annulment of the award before the Jordanian courts.
- The case reached the Jordan Court of Cassation in an annulment challenge in which the appellant questioned both (i) the validity of the arbitration agreement and (ii) the arbitration procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration agreement contained in a contracting agreement and signed by the appellant was valid and binding in the annulment proceeding.
2. Whether the appellant established defects in the arbitration procedures that justified annulment of the arbitral award.

## Decision

- The Jordan Court of Cassation treated the arbitration agreement contained in the signed contracting agreement as valid and binding on the appellant.
- The court found that the appellant’s presence at the arbitration with legal representation weighed against setting aside the award based on alleged procedural defects, absent proof of defects meeting annulment standards.
- The court rejected the appellant’s annulment challenge, leaving the arbitral award in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A written arbitration agreement contained in a signed contract is generally enforceable against the signatory for disputes falling within its scope.
- Annulment review is confined to recognized set-aside grounds (such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement or serious procedural violations) and does not reopen the merits of the arbitral decision.
- A party seeking annulment bears the burden to prove qualifying procedural irregularities; participation in the arbitration with counsel may weigh against later procedural objections that were not substantiated.

## Conclusion

In *Judgment of 23 May 1995, Case No. 704/1995 (1995)*, the Jordan Court of Cassation addressed a post-award annulment request challenging both the validity of an arbitration agreement embedded in a signed contract and the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The court treated the signed arbitration agreement as binding and declined to annul the award where the challenger had participated in the arbitration with counsel and did not prove procedural defects sufficient to warrant set-aside.
