Arbitration continues to gain traction in the UAE’s legal landscape

With different laws and court systems across the emirates of ‘onshore’ UAE and further rules and court procedures in the ‘offshore’ free zones of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), navigating arbitration law and procedure can be challenging. However, in recent months, legislators and the courts have provided clarity on matters such as the validity of arbitration clauses, the powers of arbitral tribunals, and enforcement. In addition, popular arbitral institutions such as the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) have invested in new platforms designed to make it easier for parties to use their services.

• Read more: international arbitration developments and trends for 2025-26

Below, we explore how the arbitration ecosystem in the UAE has been evolving in more detail and highlight what businesses can learn from the most recent developments. 

Jurisdiction of the DIFC courts in respect of arbitration 

In the Emirate of Dubai, Law No. 2 of 2025 (repealing Dubai Laws No. 10 and No. 12 of 2024) was enacted and came into force in March 2025. Various changes were made, including further defining the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts in a single statute. The law also provides for the establishment of a Mediation Centre and makes it easier for businesses to enforce judgments and awards of the DIFC courts in onshore Dubai. A new procedure was adopted to provide ‘compulsory enforcement’ of determinations including judgments, orders and decisions issued by the DIFC courts under the form of an enforcement writ. Enforcement writs also include arbitral awards and settlement agreements ratified by the DIFC courts. 

In terms of the jurisdictional ambit of the DIFC courts, article 14 confers exclusive jurisdiction over ratification and recognition of arbitration awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law. Specifically with regards to interim relief, article 15(4) provides that the DIFC courts have the power to grant interim relief within the DIFC in support of foreign litigation or foreign arbitration proceedings taking place outside of the DIFC’s territory.  

Signature requirement clarified 

In August 2025, the Federal and Local Judicial Principles Unification Commission of the UAE (the Commission) issued Decision No. 1 of 2025 – resolving a long-standing area of conflicting decisions from UAE courts on whether arbitrators must sign every page of an award or only the final page.

Article 41 of the Federal Arbitration Law requires arbitral awards to be signed by the tribunal but does not specify how signatures should appear. This ambiguity led to inconsistent rulings. For example, in a 2020 case, the Dubai Court of Cassation adopted a strict approach, holding that failure to sign every page rendered an award invalid and unenforceable, while the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation took the opposite view, confirming that a signature on the final page was sufficient and rejecting the notion that signing each page was a public policy requirement.  

These conflicting interpretations created uncertainty for businesses and opened the door to procedural challenges that undermined enforcement.  

With its decision, the Commission affirmed the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation’s approach. It held that an arbitral award is valid and enforceable if the arbitrators’ signatures appear on the final page provided that the award is coherent and complete. This, it considered, satisfies the article 41 requirement. It added that there is no statutory requirement to sign every page and that failure to sign each page neither constitutes a ground for annulment of the award under article 53 of the Federal Arbitration Law nor breaches UAE public policy or the New York Convention: imposing additional formalities would contradict the Convention’s objective of facilitating recognition and enforcement and could frustrate the efficiency of arbitration, it said. 

This decision is binding on all UAE courts and removes a procedural hurdle that previously threatened enforcement. By resolving conflicting rulings across emirates, it eliminates annulment risks based on formalities, aligns UAE practice with international standards, enhances predictability, and strengthens the country’s position as a leading arbitration hub. 

No scope to hedge bets on forum for resolving disputes 

A significant ruling by the Dubai Court of Cassation in 2024 confirmed that unilateral – or asymmetric – arbitration clauses are not valid under UAE law. Such clauses typically allow one party to choose between arbitration and litigation, while the other party has no such option. The court held that these provisions do not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, meaning they do not prevent UAE courts from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute when faced with this type of agreement.  

The Dubai Court of Cassation came to rule on the matter in the context of claims originally filed by a subcontractor in the Dubai Court of First Instance, in which payment under two subcontracts was sought. Each subcontract contained a clause stating that unresolved disputes could be referred either to arbitration at the Dubai Chamber of Commerce or to the UAE courts, with the choice left solely to the main contractor. The contractor argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because of the arbitration clause. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, and the matter proceeded to the Court of Cassation.  

While some jurisdictions uphold unilateral clauses based on party autonomy, the Dubai Court of Cassation held that UAE law requires arbitration agreements to be explicit and unequivocal, meaning they must commit both parties to resolve disputes exclusively through arbitration. It considered the clause in question in this case to fail that test since it did not establish arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution and restricted the subcontractor from initiating proceedings until the contractor made an election, creating uncertainty and imbalance. As a result, the court declared the clause invalid and confirmed that UAE courts could retain jurisdiction over the dispute.  

The ruling underscores that arbitration agreements under UAE law must clearly and exclusively provide for arbitration. Clauses granting one party discretion to choose between arbitration and litigation are unlikely to be enforced. Importantly, this principle may be applied even where the contract specifies a foreign governing law or seat of arbitration. Under article 21 of the UAE Civil Code, procedural matters and jurisdiction are determined by UAE law when proceedings are filed in UAE courts.  

Parties wishing to arbitrate disputes in the UAE should ensure their dispute resolution clauses are drafted to make arbitration the sole and mandatory forum. 

Clarifications around interim awards and tribunal powers to issue anti-suit injunctions 

In July 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed that article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law grants UAE-seated arbitral tribunals the authority to order interim or precautionary measures and gives them exclusive power to amend or vacate such orders during the arbitration. It overturned an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, which had annulled an interim award issued by an ICC arbitral tribunal seated in Dubai.  

The award in question prohibited a party from initiating court proceedings – a so-called ‘anti-suit’ injunction. The Court of Appeal held that arbitration cannot restrict a party’s constitutional right to access the courts unless expressly permitted by law, and the anti-suit injunction did not qualify as a valid interim measure under UAE law. The Dubai Court of Cassation overturned the decision and dismissed the application to annul the interim award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. 

The ruling confirms the autonomy of arbitral tribunals in managing interim measures, reinforcing the UAE’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. 

In a separate case that concerns DIFC Arbitration Law, the enforceability of interim awards was addressed by the DIFC Court of Appeal in the 2024 case of Neal v Nadir. It ruled that provisional arbitral awards issued by tribunals seated outside the DIFC can be enforced within the DIFC.  

The case concerned a “provisional award on interim relief” that imposed a freezing order and an ancillary disclosure order. The respondent argued that article 24 of DIFC Arbitration Law only permits enforcement of interim measures in DIFC-seated arbitrations and that interim awards lack the “finality” required for enforcement. However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasising that enforceability depends on the binding nature of the award, not its finality. Once an interim award qualifies as an “award” under the DIFC Arbitration Law, parties are obliged to comply.  

The decision establishes that foreign-seated and domestic interim arbitral awards can be enforced in the DIFC. The decision aligns with global trends and the New York Convention 1958 regarding recognition of interim relief. 

In the ADGM, in late 2025, the Court of Appeal determined that the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) override procedural restrictions in institutional rules, such as the LCIA Rules, in the context of allowing the court to order a worldwide freezing order in support of arbitration proceedings seated in the ADGM(case A30 v E30 [2025] ADGMCA 0003). It was held that section 31 of the Regulations allow applications to the ADGM courts for interim relief and the parties’ adoption of institutional rules cannot fetter this power. In circumstances where the tribunal was unable to act, as was the case with the worldwide freezing order in question because the application would have been notified to the other party, risking dissipation of assets, the court is able to act. The decision was heralded as a further indication of the ADGM’s pro-arbitration stance. 

Assignment of arbitration clauses 

A 2024 case ruled on by the Dubai Court of Cassation has confirmed that it is possible to assign arbitration clauses contained in a contract, even where that is not explicitly provided for in the assignment agreement. 

The court considered the matter in a case in which there was an assignment of rights under a FIDIC contract. The employer had assigned its contractual rights to another company, and the contractor argued that the arbitration agreement did not automatically follow the assignment unless expressly stated. On that basis, the contractor sought to litigate against the assignee in the Dubai courts.  

Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal agreed with the contractor, holding that the arbitration clause was not included in the assignment. However, the Dubai Court of Cassation overturned these decisions. It ruled that the assignment agreement – signed by the contractor – was sufficiently broad to encompass all rights and claims arising under the contract. This demonstrated the parties’ intention for the arbitration clause to transfer alongside those rights, it considered. Consequently, the contractor was bound to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than court proceedings.  

For businesses, the ruling highlights that where an assignment agreement is drafted in comprehensive terms, it can extend to dispute resolution provisions, including arbitration clauses, even if not expressly mentioned. The decision underscores the UAE’s increasingly arbitration-friendly approach to interpreting arbitration agreements and enforcing awards.  

Modernisation by arbitral institutions 

The largest arbitral institution in the UAE, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), is set to begin operation of a new digital arbitration platform, DANA by DIAC. The platform provides a single space for parties, legal practitioners and DIAC’s case management team to collaborate. Its features include centralised e-filing, case registration, and document submission, along with advanced case management workflows. By implementing the new platform, the DIAC hopes to streamline arbitration processes, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance efficiency, transparency and accessibility.  

The investment in DANA by the DIAC is just the latest step the DIAC has taken to modernise. In June 2025, it announced a partnership with Jus Mundi. Among other things, the partnership gives the DIAC access to Jus Mundi’s AI-driven legal research and workflow solution, Jus AI, to help streamline case management processes. The partnership also enables AI-related training specific to arbitration practices and the publication of DIAC decisions on Jus Mundi’s platform. 

The relatively nascent Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) also took steps in 2025 to enhance its offering to parties by publishing the official Arabic version of its arbitration rules. The development is more than a translation exercise: it represents a strategic move to strengthen procedural certainty for Arabic-speaking users and facilitate the inclusion of arbitration clauses in Arabic-language contracts. By doing so, arbitrateAD expands access to world-class arbitration services across the region and internationally. ArbitrateAD also unveiled a new Arabic-language website.