50 Defining Moments of 2025: Part 6
THE AUTHOR:
Joseph Chedrawe KC, Independent International Arbitrator
This article is part of “Middle East Arbitration: 50 Moments That Shaped 2025,” a series exploring 50 significant developments in international arbitration across the Middle East. Spanning the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and beyond, the series highlights key judicial decisions, legislative reforms, and institutional developments that shaped the region’s evolving arbitration landscape in 2025.
QICDRC Upholds Appointment Power
On 26 August 2025, in D v E, the Qatar International Court Dispute Resolution Centre (the “QICDRC”) was asked to appoint an arbitrator under a clause that read: “Any disputes… should be determined by arbitration in Doha, Qatar… administered by the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) pursuant to its rules” (D v E [2025] QIC (F) 38, para 3). The respondent challenged the request for an appointment, arguing the clause was invalid because the QICDRC is a court, not an arbitral institution that administers cases under its own rules (paras 12(i), 39).
In its judgment, the Court found it had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator (paras 1, 52). The Court reasoned that “fine distinctions of text, semantics or legalism should be avoided” and that the interpretation that “sustains the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is to be preferred” (para 24). The Court interpreted “Arbitration in Doha, Qatar” to mean the seat was the State of Qatar, making Qatar’s Arbitration Law applicable (para 35).
The Court then interpreted the phrase “administered by the QICDRC” to mean the parties had chosen the Qatar Financial Centre (“QFC”) Court as the “Competent Court” under that law, which gives it the power to “govern and supervise” the arbitration (paras 32, 35, 40).
The Court also dismissed the defendant’s other challenges regarding the underlying contract’s validity, including allegations of fraud (paras 12(iii-iv), 46). The Court held that these matters do not invalidate the arbitration clause itself and must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (paras 47-51). The Court did not immediately appoint an arbitrator, instead ordering both parties to file submissions on the separate issue of whether the claimant had waived its right to arbitrate by previously filing in the wrong court (paras 52-54).
QICCA Adopts New Arbitration Rules
The new rules expand from 48 to 78 articles and introduce several new features, including new provisions for consolidation and the joinder of third parties, a new system for appointing an Emergency Arbitrator, a six-month time limit for issuing a final award, a dedicated chapter on Expedited Arbitration Procedures (with a 90-day time limit for the final award), a requirement for the disclosure of third-party funding, and a mechanism for the appointment of tribunal secretaries, among others (Article 10, Consolidation of Arbitrations; Article 21, Joinder of Additional Parties; Chapter V, Articles 60-66, Emergency Arbitrator Procedures; Article 50(1); “The arbitral tribunal must make its best endeavours to issue the final award within six months from the date of signing the Terms of Reference…”; Chapter IV, Articles 55-59, Expedited Arbitration Procedures; Article 59(2); Article 9, Third Party Funding; “Where a party has entered into a funding arrangement with a third party, it must disclose the existence and nature of such arrangement…”; Article 24, Secretary of the Arbitral Tribunal).
Qatar Court of Appeal Confirms Narrow Grounds for Set Aside
On 14 May 2025, the Qatar Court of Appeal in Case No. 299/2025 rejected an application to set aside an arbitral award issued in a construction dispute valued at approximately QAR 1 billion. The Court held that the applicant had failed to prove that the application satisfied any of the grounds set out under Article 33 of the Qatari Arbitration Law No. 2 of 2017 (the “Qatari Arbitration Law”).
The dispute arose from an ICC arbitration initiated by a consortium of companies against the applicant. On 28 February 2025, the tribunal issued an award ordering the applicant (respondent in the arbitration) to pay amounts to the respondent (claimant in the arbitration).
The applicant filed a set-aside application on 26 March 2025, raising seven grounds including: failure to enclose a copy of the arbitration agreement in violation of Article 31(3); violation of public policy for ordering interest; breach of the parties’ agreement by awarding loss of profit contrary to a contractual exclusion clause; ruling ex aequo et bono without applying Qatari law; and tribunal bias.
The Court rejected all grounds. On the loss of profit claim, the Court noted that, while the contract contained an exclusion clause under Article 17.6.1, this was subject to an exception under Article 17.6.4 for cases of fraud, willful default, or reckless misconduct. The Court observed that the tribunal had found that the applicant’s conduct constituted reckless misconduct and willful default.
As to the remaining grounds, the Court held that the grounds for setting aside under Article 33 are strictly limited and cannot be broadly interpreted, and that the applicant had failed to prove that any of the enumerated grounds applied. The Court further held that, under Article 5 of the Qatari Arbitration Law, where a party fails to object during arbitration proceedings and continues to participate without reservation, it is deemed to have waived its right to rely on those grounds at the set aside stage.
Qatar International Court Confirms Settlement Talks Are Confidential
On 30 June 2025, in Zishan Anwar v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (A) 9, the Appellate Division of the Qatar International Court (“QIC”) ruled that communications made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute are confidential and inadmissible in court, even if not explicitly marked “Without Prejudice” (para 30).
The issue arose on appeal from a small claims judgment. The first instance judge, in assessing a disputed fee, had relied on a settlement offer made by the defendant (para 18). The judge noted that the QAR 20,000 offer “supports the figure of QAR 15,000 as being fair and reasonable” (para 15). On appeal, the defendant argued that this was an error as the offer was made during genuine settlement discussions and should not have been used as evidence (para 18).
The Appellate Court agreed. The Court first noted that the QFC has no express law on the “without prejudice” rule (para 20). The Court then looked to other sources, including Article 17 of the QICDRC Mediation Rules, which bars any reliance on mediation discussions in court, and Qatar’s national Mediation Law (Law No. 20 of 2021), which mandates the confidentiality of all mediation-related discussions and documents (paras 21-22, 23-24).
Relying on these local rules, common law principles, and the “universal principle” in international commercial practice, the Court concluded that the jurisdiction “should follow the widely accepted principle of law that communications between parties made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute are confidential and must not be used in proceedings when the attempt to settle fails” (para 30).
The Court noted that this rule is based on the public interest in encouraging settlements (para 30). The Court also noted that, as it is a public policy rule, it applies automatically and does not require the parties to use the “Without Prejudice” label, the only test being whether the communications were part of a “genuine attempt to settle” (para 30). The Court found the defendant’s offer clearly met this test and therefore should not have been used to support the lower court’s assessment (para 33).
Qatar Proposes Laws Regulating Arbitrators and Arbitration Centers
On 3 September 2025, Qatar’s Ministry of Justice opened public consultation on two proposed laws that would introduce electronic registers and licensing requirements for arbitrators and arbitration centres (Draft Ministerial Decision on the Conditions and Rules for the Registration and Deletion of Arbitrators in the Register and the Fees Due, Qatar Ministry of Justice, Sharek Public Consultation Platform, 3-17 September 2025; Draft Ministerial Decision on the Conditions and Rules for Licensing Arbitration Centres and Branches of Foreign Arbitration Centres, Qatar Ministry of Justice, Sharek Public Consultation Platform, 3-17 September 2025).
The first proposal, the Draft Arbitrator Law, would create a new electronic register for arbitrators (Art. 1). To be included on the register, arbitrators would have to meet several criteria, including having: a university degree, a good reputation, at least 10 years of relevant experience, and previously rendered or participated in rendering at least five arbitral awards (Art. 2, requiring that an arbitrator: (1) be a natural person with legal capacity; (2) hold a university degree from a recognized university or higher institute; (3) be of good reputation; (4) have no criminal conviction for a felony or misdemeanor involving dishonesty; (5) have at least 10 years of experience in legal, financial, economic, engineering, accounting, or other relevant fields; and (6) have issued or participated in issuing at least 5 arbitral awards).
The second proposal, the Draft Arbitration Centre Law, sets out requirements for licensing arbitration centres (or branches of foreign institutions) in Qatar, such as: a permanent headquarters in the country, a roster of at least 30 arbitrators, professional indemnity of at least QAR 1 million, and arbitration activities for at least 15 consecutive years (Draft Ministerial Decision on the Conditions and Rules for Licensing Arbitration Centres and Branches of Foreign Arbitration Centres, Qatar Ministry of Justice, Art. 1(a)(6)-(7), 1(b)(3)-(4).
QFC Court Says “Competent Court” Designation Does Not Confer Merits Jurisdiction
On 11 September 2025, the QFC Civil and Commercial Court (First Instance Circuit), in C v D [2025], Case No. CTFIC0027/2025 QIC (F) 44, held that a clause designating the Court as “Competent Court” for an arbitration does not give it jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute (para 14).
The case arose from a services agreement containing an arbitration clause that designated QICDRC-administered arbitration with Qatar as the seat and the QFC Court as the “Competent Court” (para 6). When the claimant filed proceedings in the QFC Court, the defendant applied for dismissal based on the arbitration clause (paras 2, 4-5). The claimant argued that the designation of the QFC Court as the “Competent Court” meant the parties had agreed it was “the competent authority for resolving disputes” (para 9).
The Court rejected this argument as “misguided” (para 14). The Court held that “the parties expressly agreed (i) that their dispute be resolved by arbitration, and (ii) that this Court should administer that arbitration: in other words, that it would be the Competent Court and have a supervisory role in respect of an arbitration” (para 14). The Court clarified that “[t]he fact that this Court is the Competent Court for any arbitration between these parties does not mean that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute” (para 14).
The Court stated that the “meaning of clause 4 is clear” and that it “contains the parties’ express agreement to refer disputes to arbitration and thus the mutually agreed forum for resolution of their substantive dispute” (para 13). The Court concluded that “the parties are bound by that agreement” and ordered the proceedings stayed (para 13).
QFC Court Confirms Non-QFC Parties Can Choose QFC as Seat
On 21 December 2025, the Qatar International Court, First Instance Circuit, in L v M QIC (F) 67, ruled that two non-QFC entities could validly designate the QFC as the seat of arbitration and the QFC Court as the Competent Court under the QFC Arbitration Regulations 2005 (paras 15-16, 21). The dispute arose from a Labour Supply Contract containing an arbitration clause that specified the seat as “the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre in the Qatar Financial Centre” (para 4; clause 31 of the Labour Supply Contract)
The Court held that, although the QICDRC is not a legal entity or a formal seat of arbitration, on a purposive interpretation, the clause named the QFC as the seat governed by the QFC Arbitration Regulations (L v M QIC (F) 67, paras 15-16). The Court also addressed whether this construction offended the principle in the Cambridge Case, which held that non-QFC parties cannot extend the QFC Court’s jurisdiction through secondary legislation (The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v The Holding WLL QIC (A) 6, as discussed in L v M, paras 11, 18) The Court found no conflict, reasoning that its jurisdiction derived from the Qatar Arbitration Law, Law No. 2 of 2017, primary legislation that expressly allows parties to elect the QFC Court as “Competent Court” (paras 19-20).
The Court stated that, as the Qatar Arbitration Law affords non-QFC parties this option, it must be accepted that this option extends to the QFC Arbitration Regulations regardless of whether any party is a QFC entity (para 20). Applying Article 14 of the QFC Arbitration Regulations, the Court directed the Registrar to appoint a sole arbitrator and reserved costs for later determination (para 21).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Chedrawe KC is an international arbitrator based in the Middle East, with two decades of dispute resolution experience. He has acted as counsel in more than 50 international arbitrations and as arbitrator in over 50 proceedings across a wide range of seats, rules, and governing laws.
Joseph sits as chair, sole arbitrator, and co-arbitrator in institutional and ad hoc proceedings, including under the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIAC, QICCA, arbitrateAD, SCCA, and HKIAC Rules. He is also a member of several leading institutional panels of arbitrators.
Previously, Joseph was a Partner and Vice Chair of Disputes (EMEA) at Covington & Burling and Office Managing Partner and Head of Disputes in Dubai at Vinson & Elkins. He is a visiting professor at Dalhousie University and formerly lectured at the University of Oxford. A Canadian-qualified lawyer fluent in English, French, and Arabic, Joseph was appointed King’s Counsel in 2024.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
![DOI v. DOJ and others [2025] SGHC(I) 15: A Progressive Dimension of International Arbitration](https://dailyjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-09-Arya-Hartalkar-sgvyap-120x86.png)
