50 Defining Moments of 2025: Part 1
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.
Record Caseloads
The Middle East’s growing prominence in international arbitration is increasingly reflected in the data. Statistics published in 2025 show record participation by Middle Eastern parties and the region’s continued rise as an arbitral hub. The ICC recorded 224 parties from the Middle East, representing approximately 9% of its global caseload, while the LCIA reported that MENA parties accounted for 11% of its caseload. SIAC also recorded increased participation from the region, while ICSID reported that Middle Eastern and North African investors accounted for 8% of new cases.
The region’s rise extends beyond party participation. For the first time, the UAE ranked among the ICC’s five leading arbitral seats globally, while Dubai and Doha were among its top ten arbitral cities. The 2025 Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey likewise confirmed Dubai’s position as a leading global seat. UAE and Qatari law also ranked among the most frequently selected governing laws in ICC arbitrations worldwide.
Together, these figures point to a region increasingly established not only as a source of international arbitration cases, but also as a preferred seat and legal framework for resolving them. This growing prominence has been accompanied by significant judicial, legislative, and institutional developments across the region.
50 Moments That Shaped 2025
Against this backdrop, this series brings together 50 significant arbitration developments across the Middle East in 2025, including selected developments from 2024 that came into focus during the year.
Taken together, these moments reveal several broader trends: courts increasingly favour substance over procedural technicalities and show deference to tribunal authority; arbitral institutions continue to modernise their rules, infrastructure, and international partnerships; and legislative reforms, treaties, and cross-border enforcement mechanisms are further connecting the region to the global arbitration system.
The result is a picture not simply of growing caseloads, but of an increasingly mature and internationally integrated arbitration landscape. These 50 moments capture that trajectory.
Dubai Court of Cassation Confirms Urgent Relief Does Not Waive Agreement to Arbitrate
On 30 July 2024, the Dubai Court of Cassation overturned a Court of Appeal decision that had treated a clause allowing provisional court measures as a waiver of the parties’ arbitration agreement. (Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 296 of 2024, 30 July 2024). The dispute was based on a service contract governed by an arbitration agreement where the Court of Appeal had accepted jurisdiction over the claim based on an incorrect Arabic translation of the dispute resolution clause.
The Dubai Court of Appeal had dismissed an objection to its jurisdiction, relying on an Arabic translation of the contract, which suggested that the parties had agreed to refer “any dispute” to the courts whereas the original English text allowed recourse to the courts only for “injunctive relief or other provisional remedy.”
The Dubai Court of Cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal had prioritized an incorrect translation over the clear English text, which limited court intervention to temporary protective measures rather than a full review of the merits.
The Court expressed that interim relief is a statutory right that coexists with arbitration. The Court also noted that the clause in question was consistent with Article 18 of the UAE Arbitration Law, which grants parties the right to seek interim or precautionary measures from a competent court, either before or during arbitral proceedings, and without such actions being considered as a waiver of the arbitration agreement.
The Court held that the English text reflected the true intention of the parties: to arbitrate their substantive disputes while retaining the right to seek urgent judicial protection if needed. The Court confirmed that the “injunctive relief” clause did not give rise to an abandonment of the arbitral process, and the dispute was submitted to arbitration.
Dubai Court of Cassation Upholds “Without Prejudice” Principle for Settlement Talks
On 22 October 2024, in Case No. 486 of 2024, the Dubai Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in Case No. 31 of 2024 from 3 April 2024 that statements made during unsuccessful settlement negotiations could not be used in subsequent court proceedings to prove a party’s liability: “The appealed judgment concluded by upholding the appealed decision”.
The case arose from a commercial dispute involving a cryptocurrency transaction: “The expert did not calculate the correct exchange rate for the USDT currency”.
The claimant sought to introduce WhatsApp messages exchanged during settlement discussions as evidence of the defendant’s admissions of liability: “His defense that the respondent admitted the requested amount in the proposed settlement project to resolve the dispute”. The Court of Appeal ruled these statements inadmissible, deeming they had been made on a “without prejudice” basis. The Dubai Court of Cassation, referring to the Court of Appeal reasoning, stated: “Statements made during amicable settlement negotiations, if they are not successful and do not result in a settlement between the parties, cannot be taken as evidence or an admission against the party who made them”.
The Court of Cassation upheld this ruling, reiterating that communications made during settlement negotiations that do not result in a binding agreement are protected by an immunity and cannot be used as evidence against the party who made them: “Because he made them without prejudice to his rights, and they enjoy immunity that prevents them from being considered evidence against him when the case is heard before the court”. The Court of Appeal judgment specifically referred to such communications as “Statement without prejudice” (as termed in English in the Arabic-language judgment text itself).
Dubai Court of Cassation Says Skipping Pre-Arbitration Steps Does Not Invalidate Jurisdiction
On 19 November 2024, the Dubai Court of Cassation in Case No. 946/2024 turned down a challenge to a Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) arbitral award. (Dubai Court of Cassation, Case No. 946 of 2024, 19 November 2024, p. 2). In that case, the Court made clear that failing to follow contract-required early dispute steps did not invalidate the tribunal’s authority, stating that pre-conditions to arbitration “are not considered matters related to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal”.
The case arose from a contractor’s argument that the award was invalid because the claimant had not sent the dispute to a consulting engineer first, as required by the agreement’s escalation process.
The Court distinguished between jurisdictional issues, which the Court said ask if the tribunal or courts have the authority to hear the dispute, and admissibility issues, which the Court said check if the claim is ready to be heard, i.e. without missing procedural steps like early dispute steps. The Court concluded that skipping these steps might pause the case until fixed, but would not cancel the arbitration agreement or transfer the case to state court, stating that non-compliance “does not return the authority to decide the dispute to the state courts again”.
The Court noted that the tribunal would check compliance with the arbitration agreement: “so arbitration remains the body with jurisdiction to decide the dispute” (p. 3), as parties may include any condition they see fit in their arbitration agreement. This Court also noted that this approach ensures that agreed processes help claims move forward instead of stopping them, as long as they comply with public policy and moral standards, stating that conditions must not conflict with “public order or morals” and that “the purpose of the procedure is to place it in the service of the right” (p. 3).
Dubai Court of Cassation Confirms Jurisdiction Over Award Annulment and Says Tribunals Can Award Legal Fees
On 19 November 2024, the Dubai Court of Cassation, in Case No. 756/2024 (Commercial) confirmed the Dubai courts had jurisdiction over an ICC arbitral award annulment, rejecting the argument that the ADGM courts had jurisdiction by virtue of the ICC’s representative office being in the ADGM and the hearings having been held at the ADGM Arbitration Centre: “Accordingly, jurisdiction to hear the annulment application for this award lies with the Dubai Court of Appeal”.
The Court drew a distinction between the “legal seat” of arbitration and the physical location of hearings: “A distinction must be made between the physical location where hearings are held and the place of arbitration as a legal concept — the seat. The Court stated that the legal seat determines the applicable procedural law, the supervisory court’s jurisdiction, and the award’s nationality, whereas the hearing venue carries no legal significance.
The Court also emphasized that the location of an arbitral institution’s office is irrelevant to determining which court hears any annulment proceedings and that only the parties’ agreement on the legal seat matters.
Finally, the Court clarified that the ICC representative office in the ADGM, which was established to facilitate ICC cases in the region, has no connection to the ADGM Arbitration Centre.
The Court further clarified that the ADGM Arbitration Centre is not an arbitral institution but rather a hearing facility serving all parties regardless of the institution.
The Dubai Court of Cassation also dismissed an annulment application, ruling that, when parties agree to institutional rules like the ICC Rules, those rules take precedence over the default cost provisions in the UAE Arbitration Law (p. 6). The Court noted Article 38(1) of the ICC Rules, which states that arbitration costs include “reasonable legal and other costs incurred by the parties for the arbitration.” The Court then assessed that this wording was general, unrestricted, and not an exhaustive list. The Court concluded that this wording clearly covers lawyers’ fees, especially since both parties in the case had themselves asked the tribunal to award their legal costs (p. 7).
DIAC Partners with Opus 2 and Jus Mundi and Launches “DANA by DIAC”
On 21 January 2025, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) and Opus 2, a UK-based legal technology provider, formalized a strategic partnership. This collaboration introduced a new digital platform for case management and modern hearing technologies.
DIAC users will gain access to Opus 2’s hearing solutions through a dedicated portal, which will allow them to request virtual hearing setups, shared electronic case files, real-time transcription, and digital evidence presentation.
Following that partnership, on 12 November 2025, DIAC announced the launch of “DANA by DIAC,” a new digital arbitration platform set to go live in January 2026, featuring centralised e-filing, case registration, document submission, and additional case management tools to simplify how arbitrations are administered.
Announced on 24 June 2025, DIAC also entered into a new partnership with Jus Mundi. The collaboration involves integrating AI into DIAC’s case management operations and making DIAC’s decisions on arbitrator challenges publicly accessible on the Jus Mundi platform, as well as a joint “thought leadership” program, including AI training for DIAC’s new Virtual Academy for legal professionals.
Dubai Court of Cassation Backs Tribunal Authority to Issue Anti-Suit Injunctions
On 3 July 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed that arbitral tribunals have the power to issue anti-suit injunctions. (Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 657 of 2025, 3 July 2025, p. 3). The ruling overturned an earlier Dubai Court of Appeal decision (Case No. 8 of 2025, issued on 28 April 2025) that had cancelled an anti-suit injunction issued by an arbitral tribunal, finding that the measure was a violation of the constitutional right to access the courts (Commercial Appeal No. 657 of 2025, p. 2).
Applying Article 21 of the UAE Arbitration Law, the Dubai Court of Cassation held that an arbitral tribunal is empowered to “order any interim or precautionary measures it deems necessary as required by the nature of the dispute” (p. 3).
The Court also found that the UAE Arbitration Law gives an arbitral tribunal the exclusive power “to cancel, suspend, or amend any interim measure it has ordered.” The Court stated that this power belongs to the arbitral tribunal “alone, and no other entity,” and that the law “did not give the right to cancel these interim and precautionary measures to any entity other than the arbitral tribunal itself.”
The Court concluded that, as the anti-suit injunction was an “interim measure during the tribunal’s consideration of the arbitration case,” the jurisdiction to review, cancel, or modify that order “is vested in it and no other.” The Court ruled that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear the challenge in the first place, and therefore stated that the original application to the Court of Appeal should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (p. 3).
Dubai Courts Open First Overseas Hub in London
On 18 July 2025, the Dubai Courts launched the first-ever overseas center, “Dubai Hub London”, which functions as an integrated “one-stop” gateway for UK and European investors that are looking to establish or expand their operations in Dubai.
The London hub established the Dubai Courts’ first-ever international service point, which allows parties to access judicial services in London without having to travel to the UAE. The Dubai Courts’ services include the attestation of contracts, declarations, and powers of attorney, as well as signature verification and legal translation.
Conflict Tribunal Outlines Factors for Deciding Jurisdiction Between Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts
On 2 September 2025, in Serene Resources DMCC v Energen DMCC, Application No. 002/2025, the Conflict of Jurisdiction Tribunal (the “CJT”) ruled that the Dubai Courts had jurisdiction over the ratification, enforcement, and annulment of a SIAC arbitral award.
The dispute arose when the respondent (claimant in the arbitration) sought to enforce a SIAC award before the DIFC Courts, which granted an enforcement order on 9 July 2025 and a worldwide freezing order on 21 July 2025. (Serene Resources DMCC v Energen DMCC, CJT Application No. 002/2025, 2 September 2025) The applicant (respondent in the arbitration) then filed an annulment application before the Dubai Courts and brought an application to the CJT to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction.
The CJT noted that both courts have jurisdiction under their respective laws: the Dubai Courts under Article 1 of the UAE Arbitration Law, and the DIFC Courts under Article 14(5) of Law No. 2 of 2025 (the “DIFC Courts Law”).
However, the CJT considered that the Dubai Courts were more suitable for hearing the matter based on several factors:
- neither party was affiliated with any DIFC body or institution;
- there was no written agreement conferring jurisdiction on the DIFC Courts;
- enforcement would be on assets located outside the DIFC; and
- the Dubai Courts hold general jurisdiction.
The CJT ordered the DIFC Courts to suspend enforcement of the award and declared that the Dubai Courts had jurisdiction over the annulment case: “1- Jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts to hear the annulment case No. 28/2025 related to the SIAC award. 2- The DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction… and ordered suspension of enforcement of this award”). The CJT declined to accept the applicant’s request to annul the global freezing order issued by the DIFC Courts and to rule on the precautionary attachment request filed before the Dubai Courts, finding that no conflict of jurisdiction had been proven to exist for those temporary and urgent matters.
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.
