THE AUTHORS:
Antonin Sobek, Associate at Mayer Brown
Farhan Shafi, Associate at Taylor Wessing
Grace Goh, Associate at Pinsent Masons
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
Overview of the Arbitral Landscape of the United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) comprises a federal judicial system and two financial-free zones with independent legal frameworks. The federal system operates on a civil law tradition and is not bound by judicial precedent. By contrast, the two freezones, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”), and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”), are based on common law, each with a court system similar to that of England and Wales. The UAE federal legal system is often referred to as “onshore” system, with the DIFC and ADGM legal systems collectively referred to as “offshore” systems.
Consequently, if the seat of an arbitration is any onshore city, it is governed by Federal Law No. 6 Concerning Arbitration (2018) (the “UAE Arbitration Law”). If the seat is the DIFC or the ADGM, Arbitration Law No. 1 (2008) (the “DIFC Arbitration Law”) or the ADGM Arbitration Regulations (2015) (the “ADGM Arbitration Regulations”) respectively apply.
Changes in the Institutional and Court Landscape
Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC)
Since the entry into force of Decree No. 34/2021 concerning the DIAC (2021), the Centre has undergone significant modernization, including the adoption of the DIAC – Dubai Arbitration Rules (2022) . In 2025, DIAC introduced further measures to strengthen its institutional framework and enhance user experience. Key developments include:
- Revised Table of Fees and Costs (Effective 1 January 2025): DIAC implemented a revised fee schedule applicable to all cases registered on or after 1 January 2025. The update provides greater transparency regarding the Centre’s payment practices and introduces market-competitive compensation for both the Centre and arbitrators, with the aim of improving service quality and attracting experienced practitioners.
- AI Partnership with Jus Mundi (June 2025): DIAC entered into a strategic partnership with Jus Mundi to integrate Jus AI tools into its operations, thus streamlining case management and enhancing efficiency. In return, DIAC agreed to make decisions on challenges accessible via Jus Mundi’s platform, promoting transparency and knowledge-sharing within the arbitration community.
- Launch of DANA Case Management System (November 2025): DIAC unveiled DANA, a next-generation case management platform powered by Opus 2. Available to users from January 2026, DANA is a collaborative environment connecting parties, counsel, arbitrators, and DIAC staff. Key features include centralized e-filing, case registration, document submission, and integrated case management tools designed to optimize case administration.
DIFC Courts
In March 2025, Law No. 2 concerning DIFC Courts (2025) introduced a comprehensive reform of the DIFC Courts, the English-language common law courts based in the DIFC free zone. This legislation consolidates previous frameworks and introduces significant enhancements to jurisdiction and procedure. Notable changes include:
- Unified Legislation: The law repeals DIFC Court Law No. 10 (2004) and Dubai Law No. 12 in respect of The Judicial Authority at DIFC (2004), consolidating offshore and onshore provisions governing the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction into a single onshore statute.
- Expanded Jurisdiction: DIFC Courts now have exclusive authority over, among other matters, the recognition and ratification of arbitral awards under DIFC Arbitration Law (Article 14(A)(5)) and international treaty-based claims (Article 14(A)(7)).
- Establishment of a Mediation Centre: A statutory Mediation Centre has been established within DIFC Courts to facilitate amicable dispute resolution (Article 13). Settlement agreements approved by the Mediation Centre are subject to compulsory enforcement (Article 30(b)(4)), thereby strengthening the appeal of mediation.
- Interim Measures: The law expressly empowers DIFC Courts to grant interim relief considered just or appropriate (Article 24(c)). Importantly, DIFC Courts may issue interim measures in support of arbitral proceedings seated outside the DIFC if precautionary measures are sought within the DIFC (Article 15(4)).
Key Judicial Themes
The recent decisions of the UAE courts reflect a maturing and increasingly harmonized pro-arbitration approach. Key themes include a strict insistence on properly authorized and executed arbitration agreements, robust judicial support for tribunals’ interim powers (including anti-suit injunctions), and a readiness to restrain parallel onshore or foreign proceedings that would otherwise undermine an arbitration clause.
Arbitration Agreements and Tribunal Authority
- Commercial Rulings – Appeal No. 778 (2025), Appeal No. 887/2025, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation (“DCC”): The dispute concerned the enforcement of an award under the New York Convention, introduced into UAE law through Federal Decree No. 43/2006 Regarding The UAE Joining the Convention of New York on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (2006). In the context of enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the DCC confirmed that:
- The New York Convention takes precedence over domestic arbitration law,
- Judicial review is strictly limited to the exhaustive grounds set out in Article V, of the New York Convention,
- The inclusion of compound interest in an award does not contravene UAE public policy since it did not breach fundamental principles of justice or morality under UAE law, and
- A prior UAE court ruling confirming the validity of the arbitration clause had acquired res judicata effect and could no longer be re-litigated.
- Commercial Rulings – Appeal No. 756 (2024), Appeal 760/2024, ruling of the DCC: The DCC held that:
- The presence of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)’s representative office in ADGM had no impact on the seat of the arbitration,
- An agreement to the ICC Rules of Arbitration displaced the application of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law, except in matters of public policy, and
- The list set out in Article 38(1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021) was illustrative rather than exhaustive, with the phrase “other reasonable costs” sufficient to include a party’s legal costs.
- Commercial Rulings, Appeal No. 657 (2025), ruling of the DCC: The DCC confirmed that an arbitral tribunal is empowered to issue interim or precautionary measures and retains exclusive authority to amend or vacate such orders during the arbitration proceedings.
On the offshore front, the ADGM Courts and the DIFC Courts continued to consolidate a consistently pro-arbitration body of jurisprudence.
- Vianney Stephane Marie Nicolas Mathonnet v. Modus Operations LLC [2025] ADGMCFI 0005: It was held that employment disputes fall within the scope of arbitrable matters under the ADGM Employment Regulations 2019.
- Judgement of the ADGM Court of First Instance [2025] ADGMCFI 0019: The ADGM Courts applied principles arising from Enka v. Chubb to determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement, ultimately finding UAE law to be applicable. Importantly, the choice of ADGM as the seat of the arbitration did not by default mean that ADGM was the governing law of the arbitration agreement.
- Judgment of Justice Sir Andrew Smith of the ADGM Court of First Instance [2025] ADGMCFI 0001: The ADGM Courts confirmed that they have express authority to issue worldwide freezing orders, not only within the context of court litigation, but also in support of the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
- DIFC CFI ARB 011/2025 Naidoo and (1) Nofret v (2) Nandini (3) Nurine (4) Nadidah: The DIFC Courts declined to grant injunction relief to prevent the continuation of arbitration proceedings and order the setting aside or varying of a procedural decision in the arbitration. The Court reiterated the principles of party autonomy, its policy of “maximum support, minimum interference” and that the Court’s powers do not extend to matters of case management, unless there is a serious denial of due process.
- DIFC CoA ARB 004/2025 (1) Oran (2) Oaken v Oved : It was held that, in cases involving anti-suit injunctions based upon arbitration agreements, unless the case otherwise falls within a head of jurisdiction specifically identified in the Court Law (for example where one of the parties is a DIFC establishment), the only source of jurisdiction is the DIFC Arbitration Law.
Procedural Formalism
- Decision of the Authority for Unification of Local and Federal Judicial Principles of the UAE on Arbitral Awards Signature Requirements: The decision confirms that an arbitral award is valid where the arbitrators sign only the final page, thus eliminating the need for arbitrators to sign each page.
- Case No. 902/2024, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (“ADCC”): The ADCC held that
- An arbitration agreement must be in writing – otherwise it would be void, and
- Non-compliance with the validity requirements of an arbitration agreement (such as the signatory lacking the requisite authority) cannot be ratified retrospectively (or waived for purposes of Article 25 of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law), unless a subsequent valid agreement, authorization or agency is established prior to the issuance of the award.
- Case No. 839, 885/2025, ruling of the ADCC: The ADCC found that the arbitration agreement was invalid because the contract was signed by someone without express authority to enter into an arbitration agreement. The decision reiterates the importance of scrutinising capacity and authorisation documents to ensure that an arbitration agreement has been validly concluded.
- Commercial Rulings, Appeal No. 445/2025/24, ruling of the DCC: An arbitration agreement contained in an unsigned, stamped annex to a contract was held to be invalid. The annex required a separate and express signature to constitute an enforceable arbitration agreement.
Waiver of the Defence of Arbitration
While the UAE has continued to adopt a pro-arbitration stance, including recent confirmations on the broad authority of arbitral tribunals and relaxation of certain procedural formalism previously applicable to arbitral awards, the onus remains on parties to ensure that arbitration clauses are invoked properly. Failure to do so may be considered that a party has waived the right to raise this as a defense in the future.
The DCC in Commercial Rulings – Appeal No. 509 (2025) faced a situation where a party sought to appeal a judgment by raising a jurisdictional objection on the basis that the dispute was inadmissible to the UAE courts due to an arbitration clause in the contract.
The DCC held that, because the appealing party did not raise the arbitration clause as a defense to the original suit filed before the UAE courts at first instance (which was a hearing at the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes), and instead engaged on the merits of the dispute, this constituted an unequivocal waiver by the party to invoke the arbitration clause as a defense under Article 8(1) of the Federal Arbitration Law.
This decision brings into sharp focus the importance of parties understanding that, where arbitration has been agreed and stipulated in the contract as the form of final dispute resolution, should there be UAE court proceedings commenced in contravention of that agreement, it is their responsibility to raise arbitration as a defense in a timely manner at first instance, before the merits of the dispute are even engaged upon. Failure to do so, as Commercial Rulings – Appeal No. 509 (2025) has established, is fatal to any subsequent attempt to raise jurisdictional or procedural objections on the same basis.
This outcome also serves as a reminder for parties not to take the pro-arbitration stance in the UAE as an excuse for laziness in ensuring that the proper defenses concerning the right to arbitrate are raised at the earliest opportunity.
Multi-jurisdictional Interfacing
Given the international nature of parties residing in or conducting business in the UAE, it is common for arbitral awards rendered in foreign jurisdictions to be brought before UAE courts for recognition and enforcement.
Recent decisions have demonstrated that the UAE will enforce awards from seats outside the UAE in different scenarios, for instance, in Olympio v Olwin, the DIFC courts permitted the recognition and enforcement of a SIAC arbitration award, including the imposition of a worldwide freezing order, and dismissed the stay applications made against the recognition and enforcement of the award.
In particular, the DIFC courts held that, while the defendant had registered a conflict of jurisdiction claim with the Conflict of Jurisdiction Tribunal, claiming that the UAE courts rather than DIFC courts had jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement proceedings, did not automatically require a stay of the recognition and enforcement proceedings.
This developments showcase not only the continued pro-arbitration stance of the UAE, but also the general cooperation between the UAE and other jurisdictions concerning the recognition and enforcement arbitral awards, consistent with the commitments made in the New York Convention.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Antonin Sobek is an international arbitration associate at Mayer Brown in Dubai and a member of the Paris Bar. He focuses on international commercial, construction, and investor-State disputes. A graduate of the London School of Economics and Sciences Po Paris, he previously served as Counsel at the DIAC (Dubai International Arbitration Centre)and the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre. In 2025, he received the Craig Gibson Award for Young Disputes Professional of the Year.
Farhan Shafi is an Associate in the Disputes & Investigations team at Taylor Wessing in Dubai. His practice focuses on international commercial and construction disputes in the Middle East, and he has acted in arbitrations under the DIAC, ICC, and LCIA Rules across a diverse range of industries. He is an alumnus of King’s College London.
Grace Goh is an Associate with Pinsent Masons, focusing on construction disputes in the Middle East. She has experience acting for clients in arbitrations and dispute boards/expert determinations under rules such as ICC, LCIA, and ArbitrateAD (previously known as ADCCAC) Rules for a variety of projects across the region. She has previously worked in Singapore and is also an alumnus of Singapore Management University.
*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.
