In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), commercial disputes are resolved through a well-developed mix of court-based mechanism and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The UAE’s positioning as a global business hub, in particular Dubai and Abu Dhabi, has led to a sophisticated, business-friendly dispute resolution framework combining civil courts, common law free zone courts, international arbitration and mediation.

Litigation in Onshore Courts

Commercial litigation is commonly used as a method of dispute resolution, especially when no ADR clause exists or when immediate court orders are required. These are formal procedures that have been codified; they follow a three-tier system and have jurisdiction over many kinds of disputes.

Dispute Resolution in Offshore Courts

Within the UAE, there are two common law courts: the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts and the Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) courts, situated in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, respectively. These courts offer judgments based on English common law principles. This method of dispute resolution is commonly used when cases are complex, multi-jurisdictional and of high value.

Arbitration

Arbitration is the most popular means of dispute resolution for international, high-value commercial disputes in the UAE. It is governed federally by the 2018 UAE Arbitration Law, which is based off the UNCITRAL Model Law. Significant arbitral institutions include the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD).

Mediation and Conciliation

Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process where a neutral mediator assists parties in reaching a settlement. Conciliation is similar to mediation; however, the conciliator may actively propose settlement terms. Both mediation and conciliation are governed by Federal Decree Law No 40 of 2023. The mediation process is supported by court-annexed and private mediation centres. These are faster and more cost-effective in relation to litigation and are non-binding unless a settlement is reached.

Litigation in Onshore Courts

Litigation remains widely used for domestic commercial disputes, especially in cases where no arbitration clause exists or where the law mandates court jurisdiction. It is common for agency, regulatory and low- to mid-value commercial claims. It is less popular for cross-border disputes due to language, formality and duration concerns.

Dispute Resolution in Offshore Courts

The DIFC and ADGM courts are highly popular for complex, international and financial commercial disputes. These courts attract multinational corporations that require proceedings to be conducted in English and according to the common law system. They are especially attractive for those seeking predictability and judicial expertise. These courts are commonly used in shareholder-, banking- and fintech-related matters.

Arbitration

Arbitration is the most popular mechanism in the UAE, particularly for high-value, international commercial disputes. It is especially prevalent in construction, infrastructure, energy, maritime and cross-border disputes. What makes arbitration stand out as a form of dispute resolution is that it allows for party autonomy, neutrality and confidentiality in proceedings, and its arbitral awards can be enforceable in various jurisdictions.

Mediation and Conciliation

Mediation and conciliation are increasingly used as early-stage dispute resolution mechanisms and are encouraged by legislation and institutions. They are particularly favoured in relationship-driven commercial disputes such as partnerships and SME matters. Their popularity rests on speed, confidentiality and cost efficiency rather than legal finality.

Conciliation

Conciliation is less frequently used than mediation but remains relevant in certain commercial and regulatory contexts. Unlike mediation, the conciliator may actively propose settlement terms, making it suitable where parties seek guided resolution. It is most effective for low-value disputes requiring structured intervention.

The Shift From Traditional Litigation to ADR Mechanisms

Over the years, there has been a clear shift towards ADR mechanisms over traditional litigation, especially regarding arbitration and mediation. Mediation and conciliation in civil and commercial disputes have been strengthened by the formal introduction of Federal Decree Law No 40 of 2023; this has led to an increased number of court-referred and voluntary mediations aimed at reducing the burden of the courts and encouraging early settlements.

The Dominance of Arbitration

Arbitration continues to be the preferred mechanism for large, technical and international commercial disputes, particularly in the realm of construction, energy and infrastructure. Institutions such as DIAC and arbitrateAD remain central and are supported by a pro-arbitration judiciary and reliable enforcement under the New York Convention.

The Growing Use of Offshore Courts

The DIFC and ADGM courts are now increasingly being chosen for complex cross-border and financial disputes. Recent reforms in legislation, including the establishment of the DIFC Mediation Centre under DIFC Law No 2 of 2025, signals an expansion from a trend of pure litigation towards integrated dispute resolution services.

The Insititutionalisation of Mediation

Mediation is no longer informal; it is now institutionalised and regulated across onshore and offshore courts. Court-annexed mediation platforms, such as Wasata, and enforcement mechanisms for mediated settlements have significantly increased its credibility and uptake, especially for SMEs and relationship-driven disputes.

The Insititutionalisation of Mediation

The UAE continues to lead regionally in online dispute resolution with the introduction of fully digital court systems in the mainland courts, as well as in the DIFC and the ADGM. This has since led to paperless processes across arbitration and mediation. Virtual and hybrid hearings are now the new norm and have helped improve efficiency, accessibility and cost management for international parties.

Overall, there is a strong trend in the UAE towards faster resolution and enforceable outcomes that are driven by economic diversification and investor confidence goals. Courts and institutions increasingly emphasise early settlements and streamlined procedures while also maintaining robust enforcement pathways for judgments and arbitral awards.

Limitation periods in the UAE vary depending on the nature of the claim as well as its governing legislation. The limitation period for the following nature of claims are as follows.

Civil Claims

The prescriptive period in general civil contractual claims is subject to a default limitation period of 15 years under the Civil Transactions Law, unless a shorter period is prescribed by law or agreement.

Commercial Claims

Commercial claims are governed by the UAE Commercial Transactions Law (Federal Decree-Law No 50 of 2022), which reduced the limitation period for commercial obligations between merchants from ten years under the former law to five years from the date the obligation fell due. Certain commercial matters, such as cheque claims, share transfer disputes and agency agreements, are subject to even shorter prescribed periods.

Insurance Claims

Insurance claims are subject to a three-year limitation period, which runs from the occurrence of the insured event or the date of knowledge.

Tortious Claims

Tortious claims including negligence and other non-contractual civil liability must generally be brought within three years from the date on which the claimant becomes aware of the damage and the individual responsible. Some statutory exceptions apply, such as the ten-year time bar applied in relation to the decennial liability of architects and contractors.

Labour Claims

The time bar for claims arising under the new UAE Labour Law (Federal Decree-Law No 9 of 2024) has been increased to two years (rather than one year) from the date the right arose, failing which the claim becomes time barred.

The UAE has a dual judicial system comprising both federal courts and local (emirate-level) courts. The emirates of Fujairah, Ajman and Umm Al Quwain fall under the federal judiciary, headed by the Federal Supreme Court. The remaining emirates, namely Abu Dhabi, Dubai Sharjah (as of recently) and Ras Al Khaimah, maintain their own independent local judicial systems with their own courts of cassation. Federal law is applied throughout all emirates unless domestic laws are issued at the emirate level.

Onshore Court Structure

Onshore courts in the UAE follow a three-tier hierarchy. Proceedings begin in the Court of First Instance. This court hears both factual and legal issues. Judgments from this court may be appealed to the court of appeal, which further re-examines the facts and law in their entirety. Subsequently, the court of cassation or the Federal Supreme Court will review legal issues only.

Offshore Court Structure

In addition to the onshore courts, the UAE hosts offshore common law courts in the DIFC and ADGM. These courts operate independently from the onshore judiciary and coexist within the broader UAE legal framework, thus providing parties with alternative litigation forums by agreement.

The UAE does not impose a universal pre-action conduct requirement for commercial claims. There is no general obligation to serve a formal notice or engage in negotiation before commencing court proceedings. However, it is common practice for a claimant to send a “letter before action” (or legal notice) setting out the nature of the claim, the relief sought and a deadline for response. While not legally mandated, such letters serve as evidence of good faith and may influence the court’s assessment of costs and conduct.

Notwithstanding the absence of a general requirement, several categories of disputes are subject to mandatory pre-action procedures, and failure to comply will result in the court declining jurisdiction or dismissing the claim as inadmissible.

Among those categories is employment disputes, which must first be filed as a complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MOHRE). MOHRE attempts to mediate and resolve the dispute amicably within a set period of time. If no resolution is reached, then the case can be referred to the competent court. Filing directly with the court without first exhausting the MOHRE process renders the claim inadmissible.

A second example is medical malpractice claims, which are referred to the relevant health authority before the competent court. In Dubai, the complainant must file with the Dubai Health Authority (DHA), which refers the matter to a Medical Liability Committee for clinical assessment. In Abu Dhabi, the complaint is filed with the Department of Health (DOH). The committee’s findings are typically a prerequisite before the claim may proceed to court.

A third example is commercial agency disputes, which must first be lodged before the Commercial Agencies Committee at the Ministry of Economy prior to referral to the court. The committee examines the dispute and issues a decision, which may be challenged before the competent court.

A fourth example is applications to strike off a registered trade mark, which must first be lodged before the Trademarks Committee at the Ministry of Economy. The outcome can then be challenged before the Court of First Instance.

Under Federal Decree-Law No 40 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation, and corresponding local legislation, claims not exceeding a value of AED5,000,000 must be referred to the relevant mediation and conciliation centre before a court claim can be admissible. In Dubai, this function is performed by the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes (CASD).

Where any of the aforementioned mandatory pre-action requirements apply, failure to comply will result in the court declining jurisdiction or dismissing the claim on grounds of inadmissibility. These requirements are designed to reduce the judicial burden on the courts, promote early resolution and ensure that parties have exhausted the appropriate administrative or conciliatory channels before resorting to litigation.

Procedure

Court proceedings in the UAE are predominantly written and inquisitorial. A case begins by filing a statement of claim before the Court of First Instance, followed by notification of the defendant. The defendant then submits a statement of defence, often followed by reply and rejoinder pleadings.

Once pleadings are closed, the court may appoint one or more court appointed experts, particularly in commercial cases involving accounting, construction or technical issues. Expert reports are frequently central to the outcome of the dispute. Hearings are generally brief and focus on procedural issues rather than oral advocacy.

After reviewing pleadings, evidence and expert reports, the court issues a written judgment. Parties may appeal judgments as of right to the court of appeal and, on points of law, to the court of cassation. Appeals may stay enforcement at certain stages, depending on the court and relief sought.

Timeline

Timelines vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case. Simple commercial cases may conclude within 6–12 months, while complex matters involving experts and appeals commonly last two years or more. Despite reforms aimed at efficiency, litigation in the UAE is often slower than arbitration.

Confidentiality in Onshore Courts

Onshore court proceedings in the UAE are not public in the sense of open court hearings or publicly accessible case files. Hearings are generally attended only by the parties, their representatives and court officials.

Certain categories of disputes are treated as expressly confidential. These include family law, employment disputes, banking matters and cases involving minors or sensitive personal information. Courts may also order confidentiality measures in cases where commercial secrets or reputational concerns arise.

Commercial litigation is therefore procedurally private but not confidential by agreement. Parties cannot contractually impose confidentiality on court proceedings in the same way as arbitration. However, disclosure is limited to the parties and the court, which mitigates damage to reputation.

Confidentiality in Offshore Courts

Offshore courts and arbitration can also offer confidentiality depending on the forum. Nevertheless, in onshore UAE courts, confidentiality is largely a function of procedural design rather than contractual choice. Proceedings in the DIFC courts are usually public, unless the parties opt for them to be private.

UAE courts are empowered to grant a wide range of interim and precautionary measures to protect parties’ rights pending final judgment. The most common form is precautionary attachment, allowing a claimant to freeze a defendant’s assets where there is a risk of dissipation. Courts may also order attachment of bank accounts, goods, or shares.

Other interim measures include injunctions, orders preventing specific acts, appointment of guardians over assets and preservation of evidence. In appropriate cases, courts may impose travel bans to prevent defendants from leaving the UAE. Interim relief may be granted ex parte where urgency is demonstrated.

To obtain interim relief, a claimant must show urgency and a prima facie right deserving protection. Courts do not examine the merits in full but assess whether harm would result if protection is refused. Security may be required to compensate the defendant if the claim ultimately fails.

Interim relief is commonly sought in commercial disputes, particularly in debt recovery and enforcement focused litigation. It is often strategically important due to enforcement challenges once assets are moved offshore.

In commercial litigation, the primary form of final relief is monetary judgment, ordering payment of sums owed. Courts may also grant declaratory relief confirming contractual rights or obligations. In appropriate cases, courts may order termination or rescission of contracts.

Specific performance is available but granted sparingly. UAE courts generally prefer monetary compensation unless performance is feasible and equitable. Courts may also confirm or lift interim measures as part of final relief.

Enforcement orders, including attachment and execution against assets, form a significant part of final relief. Courts may also impose travel bans on debtors to prevent them from leaving the UAE pending satisfaction of the judgment, and in appropriate cases, arrest warrants may be issued to compel compliance with court orders. Judgments may be immediately enforceable or subject to appeal-related stays. UAE courts focus on restoring the claimant to the position they would have been in absent breach.

Punitive or exemplary relief is not available. Relief in UAE courts is remedial and compensatory rather than punitive in nature.

Damages in UAE courts are assessed on the basis of actual and proven loss. The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating financial harm directly resulting from the defendant’s breach or wrongdoing. Courts do not award speculative or hypothetical losses. Moral and reputational damages are recognised in principle under UAE law and may be awarded where the claimant demonstrates non-pecuniary harm; however, such awards are typically modest in quantum.

Expert evidence plays a central role in calculating damages. Court-appointed experts assess financial records, lost profits and other quantifiable losses, and their reports significantly influence the court’s findings. Judges are not bound by expert opinions but rarely depart from them without strong reasons.

Contractual penalty clauses are enforceable but subject to judicial scrutiny. Courts may reduce an agreed penalty amount if it is disproportionate to the actual harm suffered. This power is exercised frequently in commercial disputes.

Interest may be awarded, subject to statutory limits and the nature of the transaction. As regards litigation costs, court fees are generally reimbursed to the successful party; however, attorney fees are awarded only on a nominal basis, typically in the range of AED1,000 to AED3,000, unless the parties have contractually agreed to a higher fee-shifting arrangement. Overall, damages assessment in the UAE is conservative and grounded in documentary evidence rather than adversarial argument.

Arbitration is highly prevalent in the UAE and is one of the most commonly used dispute resolution mechanisms for commercial disputes. The UAE’s position as a regional and international business hub has led to widespread inclusion of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts, especially in cross-border transactions. Businesses often prefer arbitration to avoid the perceived unpredictability and formality of onshore court litigation.

Arbitration is most frequently opted for in international and high-value disputes where neutrality, confidentiality and enforceability are crucial. It is also favoured by multinational companies that wish to avoid local court procedures conducted in Arabic. As a result, most large-scale commercial contracts executed in the UAE include arbitration provisions as a standard clause.

Sectors that rely heavily on arbitration include:

• construction and infrastructure, where disputes are technical and high-value;
• energy and natural resources, often involving foreign investors;
• maritime, shipping and offshore services; and
• joint venture, shareholder and M&A disputes.

Domestic companies also increasingly use arbitration, particularly where the parties seek privacy and procedural flexibility. While litigation remains common for smaller or purely domestic disputes, arbitration is firmly established as the preferred mechanism for complex commercial conflicts in the UAE.

While arbitration is broadly permitted in the UAE it is subject to important legal restrictions. The central requirement is that only disputes involving rights that may be compromised or settled can be referred to arbitration. This reflects a public policy principle embedded in UAE law.

Disputes that cannot be arbitrated upon include:

• criminal matters, as they involve public rights;
• personal status issues, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance;
• certain labour disputes, particularly where statutory protections apply; and
• some aspects of commercial agency disputes, which may initially fall under mandatory committees.

Additionally, the capacity to arbitrate is strictly enforced. Arbitration agreements must be signed by persons with express authority to do so, and failure to establish proper authority may render the agreement invalid. This has been a common ground for jurisdictional challenges.

Unilateral arbitration clauses, where only one party has the right to commence arbitration, have also been scrutinised and may be deemed unenforceable. Overall, while arbitration is widely accepted, UAE law carefully balances party autonomy with public policy limitations.

Arbitration is perceived as highly advantageous in the UAE due to its neutrality, enforceability and confidentiality. For foreign parties, arbitration avoids local court procedures and provides reassurance that disputes will be resolved by neutral decision makers. The enforceability of awards under the New York Convention is a major attraction for international commerce.

Advantages include:

• confidential proceedings, protecting sensitive commercial information;
• party autonomy, allowing control over seat, language and arbitrators;
• expert decision-makers, particularly in technical disputes; and
• international enforcement, reducing enforcement risk.

Arbitration also offers procedural flexibility, which is especially valuable in complex disputes. Parties can tailor procedures to suit the nature of the dispute and reduce unnecessary formality. In offshore seats such as the DIFC or ADGM, arbitration benefits from strong judicial support based on common law principles.

Another significant advantage is the relative insulation from lengthy multi-tier appeals. Arbitral awards are generally final, which provides legal certainty and commercial finality. These features explain why arbitration is strategically preferred for large-scale UAE commercial disputes.

Despite its popularity, arbitration in the UAE is not without disadvantages. One commonly cited concern is cost, particularly in institutional arbitration where arbitrator fees, administrative costs and expert expenses can be substantial. For mid-value disputes, arbitration may be more expensive than court litigation.

Another disadvantage is limited appeal rights. While finality is often an advantage, it can be problematic where the tribunal makes an error of law or fact. UAE law permits challenges to awards only on narrow procedural grounds, which may leave parties with limited recourse.

Drawbacks include:

• delays, especially in complex cases with multiple arbitrators or experts;
• tactical challenges to jurisdiction or validity of the arbitration agreement; and
• parallel proceedings in courts during enforcement or annulment.

In some cases, parties also encounter enforcement resistance, particularly where local assets are involved. While judicial support has improved significantly, arbitration is not always faster or simpler than litigation. Arbitration is most effective where carefully drafted clauses and realistic procedural expectations are in place.

The UAE hosts several well-established arbitral institutions, reflecting its role as a regional arbitration hub. The most prominent institution is DIAC, which administers the majority of UAE seated arbitrations. DIAC is widely used for both domestic and international disputes.

Another prominent arbitral institution is arbitrateAD, which recently came into force (in 2024), replacing its predecessor the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC).

The typical length of arbitration proceedings in the UAE varies depending on factors such as complexity, the constitution of the tribunal and the procedural strategy. Straightforward arbitrations may conclude within 12–18 months from the appointment of the tribunal to the final award. However, large construction or energy disputes often take 18–24 months or longer.

Greater time periods commonly arise due to expert evidence, document production and jurisdictional challenges. Multi-member tribunals and concurrent court proceedings can further extend timelines. While arbitration is often faster than court litigation, it is not necessarily swift in practice.

Institutional rules, however, now encourage procedural efficiency, including early case management conferences. Nevertheless, arbitration timelines also largely depend on party conduct as well as the efficiency of the tribunal.

Regulation of Onshore Arbitration

Arbitration in the UAE is primarily governed by Federal Arbitration Law No 6 of 2018, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. This law applies to both domestic and international arbitrations seated onshore in the UAE.

Key features include:

• party autonomy;
• competence-competence;
• minimal court interference; and
• tribunal powers to grant interim measures.

Regulation of Offshore Arbitration

Offshore jurisdictions such as the DIFC and ADGM have their own arbitration laws based on common law and UNCITRAL principles – ie, DIFC Arbitration Law No 1 of 2008, amended by DIFC Amendment Law No 1 of 2013, and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 amended by Amendment No 1 of 2020, respectively.

UAE courts play a supportive role in arbitration. They may assist with the appointment of arbitrators where parties fail to agree. Courts also assist with the service of documents, taking of evidence and enforcement of interim measures.

Courts are empowered to:

• enforce arbitration agreements;
• stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration; and
• recognise and enforce arbitral awards.

This supportive approach reflects the UAE’s pro-arbitration stance and commitment to international best practices.

Court intervention in arbitration is limited and tightly regulated. Courts may intervene primarily at the outset, during interim relief stages or at enforcement or annulment. Substantive review of the merits of the arbitration is strictly not permitted.

Intervention typically occurs when:

• there is no valid arbitration agreement;
• procedural irregularities have taken place; or
• public policy is implicated.

Courts cannot re-examine the tribunal’s factual findings. This restrained approach reinforces the finality of arbitration.

Arbitral tribunals in the UAE may grant a wide range of relief including monetary damages, declaratory relief, contract termination and specific performance. The scope of relief mirrors what courts may grant in business matters. Punitive damages are not granted.

Tribunals also have statutory powers to grant interim relief, such as asset preservation and injunctions. While tribunals may require court assistance to enforce interim measures, there are no material restrictions on their power to order such relief. Arbitration in the UAE therefore provides comprehensive remedial authority comparable to litigation.

In the UAE, several formal ADR procedures exist for resolving commercial disputes rather than litigation and arbitration. These mechanisms are increasingly institutionalised and supported by legislation, judicial policy and specialised centres. ADR in the UAE is designed to encourage early settlement, to preserve commercial relationships and reduce court congestion.

The most prominent ADR procedures include mediation, conciliation and negotiation. Mediation is the most developed and widely used ADR mechanism and is supported by both private institutions and court-annexed frameworks. It involves a neutral mediator assisting parties to reach a voluntary settlement without imposing a decision.

Conciliation is similar to mediation but allows the neutral third party to play a more active role, including proposing settlement terms. While conciliation is less commonly used than mediation, it still remains relevant in certain regulatory and commercial contexts. Negotiation although informal is frequently embedded into multi-tier dispute resolution clauses as a mandatory first step.

ADR procedures are now recognised as core components of the UAE’s commercial dispute resolution framework. Although ADR outcomes are consensual rather than adjudicative, settlement agreements approved by courts may be directly enforceable. As a result, ADR has evolved from an optional alternative into a strategically important process for commercial parties.

UAE law does not generally impose a universal obligation to engage in ADR before commencing litigation or arbitration processes. Parties are free to initiate proceedings unless mandated by a specific legal or contractual requirement as a preliminary step. Accordingly, ADR is usually voluntary unless expressly required by law or agreement.

However, there are a few important exceptions. Certain disputes, such as employment claims and commercial agency disputes, require mandatory referral to mediation or administrative committees before court proceedings may begin. By way of another example, Federal Decree-Law No 40 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation mandates that claims not exceeding AED5 million in Abu Dhabi must be referred to the relevant mediation prior to the filing of a court claim.

Where ADR is contractually required, such as in multi-tier dispute resolution clauses, courts and tribunals generally enforce those obligations, and if a party bypasses a mandatory negotiation or mediation step, the opposing party may challenge admissibility or seek a stay of proceedings. Subsequently, the consequence is a procedural delay rather than outright dismissal in most cases.

Failure to engage in non-mandatory ADR does not attract sanctions such as adverse cost orders. Therefore, the UAE courts do not penalise parties simply for refusing to mediate. Nonetheless, judges increasingly encourage ADR as part of case management as it reflects broader policy preferences favouring amicable resolution.

Engaging in ADR in the UAE does not extinguish or waive a party’s right to litigate or arbitrate unless a binding settlement is reached. ADR is viewed as complementary rather than exclusionary. Parties thus remain free to pursue formal adjudication if ADR fails.

Where ADR results in a settlement, the agreement may be submitted to the court for endorsement or enforcement. Once approved, a settlement acquires executory force similar to a judgment. In that scenario, subsequent litigation or arbitration on the same dispute is precluded.

If ADR fails, proceedings resume or commence as usual. Courts do not treat unsuccessful ADR attempts as admissions of weakness or liability. Moreover, statements and concessions made during ADR are typically inadmissible in later proceedings.

ADR can also narrow issues or clarify positions even when settlement is not achieved. This often shortens litigation or arbitration timelines and reduces evidentiary complexity. ADR has a practical impact even when it does not result in full resolution.

ADR in the UAE may take place before, during or even after formal proceedings have commenced. Most commonly, ADR occurs at the pre-dispute or early-dispute stage, particularly where contracts include negotiation or mediation clauses. Early intervention is encouraged to preserve commercial relationships.

Courts may also refer parties to mediation after proceedings have begun. Judges frequently suggest ADR when disputes appear suitable for settlement, especially in commercial or contractual matters. Court-annexed mediation is increasingly used at this stage.

Engaging in ADR does not automatically suspend limitation periods. Parties must take proactive steps such as filing a claim or obtaining formal acknowledgment in order to protect limitation rights. This is a critical consideration for parties relying on prolonged ADR negotiations.

As a result, ADR is often pursued alongside procedural safeguards. Commercial parties routinely commence proceedings “protectively” while engaging in parallel settlement discussions. Timing ADR strategically is therefore essential within the UAE legal framework.

Confidentiality is a defining feature of most ADR processes in the UAE. Mediation and conciliation are confidential by law, and any information disclosed during sessions cannot be used in subsequent court or arbitration proceedings. This protection is central to encouraging open and candid negotiations.

Confidentiality covers:

• statements and proposals made during ADR;
• admissions or concessions; and
• documents prepared specifically for ADR.

Negotiation confidentiality depends primarily on the agreement between the parties. While not automatically protected by statute, negotiations are often conducted on a “without prejudice” basis. Institutional mediation rules reinforce confidentiality obligations on both mediators and parties.

Confidentiality obligations typically survive the termination of ADR proceedings. Breach of confidentiality may expose a party to legal liability and would undermine the enforceability of any settlement reached.

ADR in the UAE is generally cost-effective compared to litigation and arbitration. Costs typically include mediator or conciliator fees, institutional administration fees and each party’s own legal expenses. These costs are significantly lower than multi-year court or arbitral proceedings.

Unless otherwise agreed, ADR costs are usually shared equally between the parties. However, parties are free to allocate costs differently in their mediation agreement or final settlement. There is substantial flexibility in the structuring of cost allocation.

Unlike litigation, courts do not generally intervene in ADR cost distribution. Mediators do not impose costs awards, and there are no adverse cost consequences for failing to settle. This neutrality reduces financial risk and encourages participation.

ADR cost structures therefore reinforce its attractiveness as an early-stage resolution mechanism. The predictability and proportionality of ADR costs are key drivers behind its growing use in UAE commercial disputes.

UAE courts adopt a strongly supportive and facilitative attitude towards ADR. While courts respect party autonomy and do not compel ADR in most cases, they actively encourage amicable settlement where appropriate. This approach aligns with broader national policy aimed at efficiency and judicial economy.

Judges frequently recommend mediation during proceedings, stay the proceedings to allow settlement discussions or enforce mediated settlement agreements.

Recent legislative developments have further reinforced the role of ADR within the judicial system. Court-annexed mediation centres and statutory recognition of ADR outcomes demonstrate institutional commitment.

It should also be noted that courts do not view ADR as inferior to adjudication; instead, it is treated as a legitimate and effective dispute resolution pathway. This positive judicial attitude has significantly increased confidence in ADR among commercial parties operating in the UAE.

Legal fees in the UAE are not subject to a fixed statutory tariff and are primarily governed by contractual agreement.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai Courts), the regulation of legal fees is based on the UAE Advocates Law (Federal Law No 23 of 2022) and general principles of the UAE Civil Code (Federal Law No 5 of 1985).

Lawyers and clients are expected to agree fees in advance, typically through engagement letters. In the absence of agreement, courts may determine reasonable fees based on factors such as effort, complexity and outcome. Fees must comply with good faith (Article 246) and must not be excessive or abusive. Pure contingency fee arrangements are generally not permitted, although hybrid or success-based components may be acceptable if reasonable. Courts retain discretion to reduce or disregard excessive fees, and cost recovery from the opposing party is usually limited to nominal amounts.

In contrast, the DIFC and the ADGM follow common law approaches, where legal fees are also contractual but subject to reasonableness and proportionality in cost recovery. These jurisdictions permit more flexible fee arrangements, including conditional or success-based fees, and allow greater recovery of actual legal costs.

Overall, legal fees in the UAE are contract-driven but regulated by principles of fairness, professional ethics and judicial supervision.

Third-party funding (TPF) is available in the UAE, but its regulation varies significantly between onshore courts and the financial free zones.

In onshore UAE, there is no specific statutory framework governing TPF. While it is not expressly prohibited, its contours remains uncertain and largely untested. Any funding arrangement must comply with general principles of UAE law, including good faith (Article 246 of the Civil Code) and public policy considerations. Concerns may arise where the funder’s return is excessively speculative or where the arrangement resembles an assignment of claims. As a result, TPF is rare in court litigation, though it is increasingly used in high-value arbitrations, often structured cautiously. In arbitration, TPF triggers disclosure obligations.

The DIFC and the ADGM both expressly permit TPF under common law frameworks. In the DIFC, Practice Direction No 2 of 2017 requires disclosure of the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder, particularly to address conflicts of interest and security for costs. The ADGM adopts a similarly liberal approach aligned with English law.

Contingency fee arrangements are addressed in the UAE, but their permissibility depends on the forum, and they are subject to important regulatory and ethical limits.

In onshore UAE, pure contingency fee arrangements (ie, “no win, no fee”) are generally not permitted under professional conduct rules governing advocates. The UAE Advocates Law (Federal Law No 23 of 1991) requires that legal fees be agreed in advance and remain consistent with professional ethics. Arrangements that make a lawyer’s remuneration entirely dependent on the outcome of the case are viewed as contrary to public policy and the dignity of the profession. However, conditional or hybrid fee structures are commonly accepted in practice. These typically involve a fixed or hourly base fee combined with a success fee uplift, provided the arrangement is reasonable, transparent and not excessive. Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction and may reduce fees that violate good faith (Article 246, UAE Civil Code) or constitute an abuse of rights.

In contrast, the DIFC and the ADGM adopt common law approaches and are more permissive. Both jurisdictions allow conditional fee arrangements and, in some cases, damages-based agreements, subject to regulatory safeguards, disclosure and court oversight. In practice, contingency-style arrangements are restricted onshore but more flexible in the DIFC and ADGM, where they align with international dispute resolution norms.

Insurance coverage for litigation, arbitration, and ADR is available in the UAE, but remains limited and underdeveloped, particularly in onshore jurisdictions. In onshore UAE, there is no dedicated regime for legal expenses insurance. Coverage is typically indirect, arising through policies such as professional indemnity insurance, directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance, or limited legal expenses add-ons in commercial or motor policies. These generally cover defence costs, rather than funding a claim. Coverage for arbitration or ADR depends on the wording of the policy, and there is no established market for after-the-event (ATE) insurance. As a result, parties usually rely on self-funding, with insurance playing only a supplementary role.

The DIFC and the ADGM adopt common law frameworks and are more receptive to litigation risk insurance. Legal expenses insurance and ATE insurance are recognised in principle and may be relevant in matters such as security for costs or cost recovery. However, even in these jurisdictions, the market remains developing rather than mature.

Dispute resolution costs can be recovered in the UAE, but the extent of recovery varies significantly between onshore courts, the DIFC and the ADGM.

In onshore UAE courts (Dubai Courts/Dubai Court of Cassation – DCC), cost recovery is limited. The successful party may recover court fees, expert fees and certain disbursements, but legal fees are typically awarded only on a nominal basis. UAE courts do not generally follow a full cost-shifting regime, and actual legal expenses are rarely recoverable unless there is a clear and enforceable contractual fee-shifting clause, supported by strong evidence. As a result, parties often bear the bulk of their own legal costs.

In contrast, arbitration and litigation in the DIFC and ADGM apply different approaches to costs. In arbitration, as well as in the offshore jurisdictions, the general rule is that “costs follow the event”, meaning the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay a substantial portion of the successful party’s costs. However, offshore courts assess recovery based on reasonableness, proportionality and the conduct of the parties, and may award costs on a standard or indemnity basis. Arbitration tribunals will consider the conduct of the parties, but do not typically consider other elements to limit the recovery of costs.

Overall, while cost recovery is technically available across all UAE forums, it is significantly broader and more predictable in arbitration, and in the DIFC and ADGM.

The factors considered when awarding costs in the UAE depend on the forum (onshore courts, DIFC or ADGM), but generally focus on the outcome of the case, conduct of the parties and reasonableness of costs.

In onshore UAE courts (including Dubai Courts), cost awards are limited and discretionary under the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). The primary factor is the result of the case, with the losing party typically ordered to pay court fees and expenses. Courts may also consider the conduct of the parties, including bad faith or unnecessary delay. However, legal fees are usually awarded only on a nominal basis, and proportionality or detailed cost assessment plays a minimal role.

For arbitration, as well as the DIFC and the ADGM, the principle is that “costs follow the event”. Factors that play a role include:

• the degree of success of each party;
• conduct before and during proceedings;
• the reasonableness and proportionality of costs incurred (this is more typically in the DIFC/ADGM than in arbitration);
• the complexity and value of the dispute; and
• any settlement offers or attempts to resolve the dispute.

Courts may award costs on a standard or indemnity basis, depending on conduct.

The UAE provides a broad range of interim (precautionary) relief, but the nature and scope depend on whether the matter is before onshore courts or common law jurisdictions (DIFC/ADGM).

In onshore UAE courts, interim relief is primarily governed by the Civil Procedure Law and includes precautionary attachment of assets (over bank accounts, real estate or movables) to prevent dissipation where a prima facie debt is established. Courts may also impose travel bans to prevent a debtor from absconding, and order asset disclosure through the execution judge, including inquiries with authorities such as the central bank or land department.

Additional measures include seizure of assets, appointment of experts to preserve evidence and precautionary injunctions aimed at maintaining the status quo, though these are narrower than common law injunctions. Courts may also grant interim relief in support of arbitration. Arbitration tribunals also have the authority to grant a wide array of interim relief, combining a hybrid of measures from onshore UAE and the offshore courts.

The DIFC and the ADGM offer typical common law remedies, including freezing orders (Mareva injunctions), search orders (Anton Piller orders), interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, asset disclosure orders, receivership, anti-suit injunctions and security for costs.

Courts in the UAE do grant interim relief in support of arbitration and ADR, but the scope and approach differ between onshore courts and the common law jurisdictions.

In onshore UAE, the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No 6 of 2018) expressly empowers courts to grant interim measures in aid of arbitration. Under Article 18, a party may request the court to order precautionary measures before or during arbitral proceedings, including attachment of assets, preservation of evidence and status quo orders. This jurisdiction operates alongside the tribunal’s powers under Article 21 and is particularly important where urgent relief is required or where third parties are involved. Courts generally respect the arbitration agreement and do not treat such applications as a waiver of arbitration.

Interim relief is also available in the courts of the DIFC and the ADGM. When offshore courts have jurisdiction to order interim relief in support of arbitration (typically where the arbitration is seated offshore), these courts may grant a full range of interim remedies in support of arbitration or ADR, including freezing injunctions, interim injunctions, disclosure orders and security for costs. These courts act in a supportive and supervisory capacity, ensuring the effectiveness of arbitral proceedings.

In onshore civil and commercial litigation, applications for interim relief are almost always made before the merits case is filed, or concurrently with it, depending on the urgency of the situation. The objective is normally to impose the element of surprise to ensure that the debtor/respondent fails to move assets, conceal evidence and/or escape the country.

Unlike onshore courts, DIFC and ADGM courts do not generally favour standalone interim applications disconnected from underlying proceedings. As such, interim relief is normally sought alongside or after the case on the merits is launched or adjudicated.

A party may apply for security for costs in the UAE, but its availability and scope differ significantly between onshore courts, arbitration and the DIFC/ADGM.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai Courts), there is no developed or commonly used regime for security for costs under the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). While courts have general discretionary powers, applications for security for costs are rare and not systematically recognised. Instead, protection is achieved indirectly through mechanisms such as court fees, guarantees or precautionary measures (eg, attachment orders). As a result, defendants cannot routinely compel claimants to provide security for potential adverse costs.

In contrast, security for costs is an established procedural tool in UAE arbitrations, as well as in the DIFC and the ADGM courts. Arbitral tribunals and courts may order a claimant to provide security where there is a real risk that the defendant will be unable to recover costs if successful.

Key factors include:

• the claimant’s financial position or insolvency;
• whether the claimant is resident outside the jurisdiction;
• the merits of the claim (not frivolous but may be weak);
• the claimant’s conduct; and
• the presence of TPF.

A party can apply for interim injunctions in the UAE, but their scope and the test for granting them differ between onshore courts and the DIFC/ADGM.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai courts), interim relief is granted in the form of precautionary or summary orders rather than broad common law injunctions. Courts may issue orders to preserve the status quo, prevent harm or secure rights, typically under the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). Interim injunctions are usually granted where the applicant demonstrates:

• a prima facie right or claim;
• urgency or risk of irreparable harm; or
• the need to prevent dissipation of assets or loss of evidence.

The DIFC and the ADGM follow common law principles. Courts typically apply a test similar to the English standard, considering:

• whether there is a serious issue to be tried;
• whether damages would be an adequate remedy;
• the balance of convenience; and
• any risk of injustice.

Injunctions may be granted on an urgent or ex parte basis in appropriate cases.

Arbitration offers a range of interim injunctions based on the applicable law, and interim measures are well recognised in arbitral proceedings.

The onshore court system does not have a formal summary judgment procedure equivalent to that found in common law jurisdictions. However, certain procedural mechanisms serve a functionally similar purpose by enabling expedited judgment without a full trial.

The most significant of these is the payment order proceeding governed by the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). A payment order allows a creditor holding sufficiently satisfactory documentary evidence of a liquid debt to apply directly to the court for an order imposing the debtor to pay, without the need for a full hearing or trial. The court issues the order ex parte based on the evidence submitted, and the debtor is then served with the order and given an opportunity to appeal within a prescribed period. If no appeal is filed, the order becomes final and enforceable. If the debtor objects, the matter proceeds to a trial before the court of appeal.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, summary judgment is available as a procedural tool under their respective court rules, which are modelled on common law principles. A party may apply for summary judgment where it can demonstrate that the opposing party has no real prospect of succeeding on its claim or defence, and there is no other compelling reason for the matter to proceed to trial. Courts assess the merits on the papers and may grant judgment without a full hearing.

The UAE does not recognise US-style class actions, and there is no formal procedural framework for collective or representative proceedings. However, multiple parties may be involved on both sides of claims in the UAE.

In UAE courts (including offshore courts) and in arbitration, claims are typically brought by the claimant or claimants each individually named against either a single party or against multiple respondents. The primary mechanism is joinder of parties, where multiple claimants may file a single claim if their rights arise from the same transaction or set of facts. Consolidation of related proceedings is also available, to ensure efficiency where claims involve common issues. However, there is no opt-in or opt-out class action system, and each claimant must be specifically named and participate in the proceedings. Regulatory bodies may take action in consumer matters, but this does not constitute a true class action.

Class actions are not recognised in the UAE.

Class actions are not recognised in the UAE.

Class actions are not recognised in the UAE.

Class actions are not recognised in the UAE.

In onshore UAE courts, there is no general duty of disclosure comparable to common law systems. Under federal civil procedural and evidentiary rules, a party may request the court to order the production of specific documents, but must identify the document with precision, demonstrate its relevance and show that it is in the possession of the opposing party. Broad “fishing expeditions” are not permitted, and courts exercise discretion in ordering production. There is no continuing duty of disclosure.

The DIFC and the ADGM follow common law disclosure principles. Under procedural rules – eg, the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) in the DIFC – parties are subject to a continuing duty to disclose documents that are relevant to the issues in dispute, including those adverse to their case. Disclosure is guided by relevance, proportionality and reasonableness, and may include standard or specific disclosure orders.

Document production and discovery is a recognised procedural tool in arbitrations, including those seated in mainland UAE.

The recognition of privilege in the UAE differs between onshore courts on the one hand, and arbitration and the common law jurisdictions (DIFC and ADGM) on the other hand.

In onshore UAE, there is no comprehensive doctrine of legal privilege equivalent to common law systems. However, certain protections exist under the UAE Evidence Law (Federal Decree-Law No 35 of 2022) and professional secrecy rules. Advocate-client confidentiality is recognised, and lawyers are prohibited from disclosing information obtained in the course of their mandate. Parties may resist the production of documents containing confidential communications, particularly where disclosure would breach professional secrecy. However, there is no broad concept of litigation privilege, and courts retain discretion to order production. Waiver is not formally codified but may occur where a party voluntarily relies on or discloses the content of privileged material.

Privilege is generally recognised in UAE arbitrations, including in UAE-seated arbitrations. The DIFC and the ADGM apply common law principles of privilege. These include legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and without prejudice privilege. Parties may withhold documents on these grounds, subject to relevance and proper assertion. Privilege may be waived where there is express disclosure, reliance on the document or conduct inconsistent with maintaining confidentiality.

Overall, privilege is limited and confidentiality-based onshore, but well-developed and enforceable in the DIFC and ADGM.

The UAE recognises the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality, but the scope and strength of that right differ between onshore courts, arbitration and the DIFC/ADGM.

In onshore UAE, confidentiality is recognised primarily through the UAE Evidence Law (Federal Decree-Law No 35 of 2022) and professional secrecy obligations. Parties may resist the disclosure of documents containing confidential or sensitive information, particularly where disclosure would breach advocate-client confidentiality, commercial secrecy or statutory confidentiality obligations. However, there is no absolute right to withhold documents, and courts retain discretion to order production where the document is necessary for determining the dispute.

Recognised exceptions include:

• where disclosure is required by law or court order;
• where the information is necessary to establish or defend a legal right; and
• where the party has waived confidentiality by relying on the document.

In contrast, the DIFC and the ADGM apply common law principles, where confidentiality alone does not justify withholding documents. A party must rely on recognised privilege; otherwise, relevant documents must be disclosed. Courts may protect confidentiality through redactions, confidentiality rings or restricted use orders rather than denying disclosure altogether.

Arbitrations in the UAE recognise confidentiality and privilege-related arguments in relation to document disclosure, similarly to the offshore courts.

The treatment of witness evidence in the UAE differs significantly between onshore courts on the one hand, and arbitration and the common law jurisdictions (DIFC and ADGM) on the other hand.

In onshore UAE courts (including Dubai courts), proceedings are primarily document-driven. Witness evidence is permitted but not central to the process. Witnesses may be heard if the court considers it necessary, typically through judge-led questioning rather than adversarial examination. There are no pre-trial depositions, and witness statements are not used in the same structured manner as in common law systems. Cross-examination, in the traditional sense, is limited, as the judge controls the questioning and may allow parties to suggest questions. Witnesses usually give evidence orally before the court or through written submissions, and the court has discretion to accept or disregard such evidence.

In contrast, the DIFC and the ADGM follow common law procedures. Witness evidence plays a central role, with parties typically submitting written witness statements that stand as evidence-in-chief. Witnesses may then be subject to full cross-examination and re-examination at trial. While formal US-style depositions are not standard, the courts may order evidence by deposition or examination before trial in limited circumstances.

Witness evidence (such as written witness statements and cross-examination of witnesses) is established in UAE arbitrations, including in those seated in mainland UAE, and this is reflected in the rules of all UAE arbitration institutions.

In onshore UAE courts (including Dubai courts), expert evidence is central to dispute resolution, particularly in technical matters (eg, construction, accounting). Experts are typically appointed by the court under the UAE Evidence Law (Federal Decree-Law No 35 of 2022). The court defines the expert’s mandate, and the expert prepares a written report after reviewing documents and meeting the parties. Party-appointed experts are permitted but carry less evidentiary weight. The expert’s primary duty is to assist the court impartially, not to advocate for either party. Courts often rely heavily on expert reports, though they are not strictly bound by them.

In contrast, in arbitrations, and in offshore court proceedings, experts are usually appointed by the parties, and their evidence is presented through written expert reports. Experts owe an overriding duty to the court (not the instructing party), requiring independence and objectivity. Experts may be cross-examined at trial, and tribunals or courts may also appoint single joint experts where appropriate.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai courts), enforcement is governed by the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). A party must apply to the execution judge for ratification of the foreign judgment. The UAE courts do not re-examine the merits but will verify specific conditions, including that the foreign court had proper jurisdiction, the judgment is final and enforceable, the parties were properly notified and the judgment does not conflict with UAE public policy or an existing UAE judgment. In some cases, reciprocity between jurisdictions is also considered. Once recognised, the judgment is enforced through standard execution measures such as attachment or seizure of assets.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, foreign judgments may be enforced either directly or by obtaining a recognition judgment, provided requirements such as jurisdiction, finality and absence of fraud or public policy concerns are satisfied.

The procedures for enforcing arbitral awards in the UAE differ depending on whether the award is domestic or foreign, and whether enforcement is sought onshore or in the DIFC/ADGM.

In onshore UAE, enforcement is governed by the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No 6 of 2018). For domestic awards, a party must apply to the competent court of appeal for ratification (recognition). The court does not review the merits but may refuse enforcement on limited grounds, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of due process or violation of public policy. Once ratified, the award is enforced through execution proceedings.

For foreign arbitral awards, enforcement is also sought before the court of appeal but is additionally governed by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which the UAE is a party. The same limited grounds for refusal apply, including incapacity, procedural irregularity, or public policy concerns. UAE courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, enforcement follows common law procedures, with streamlined recognition and strong judicial support for arbitration. Awards can be recognised and then enforced locally or used as a basis for execution onshore.

Overall, the UAE provides a robust and arbitration-friendly enforcement regime for both domestic and foreign awards.

The duration of enforcement proceedings in the UAE varies depending on whether enforcement is sought onshore or in the DIFC/ADGM, and whether the matter is contested.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai courts), enforcement of judgments or arbitral awards typically involves two stages: recognition (ratification) and execution. If uncontested, recognition may take approximately 1–3 months, while execution (including asset attachment, bank inquiries, and sale) may take an additional 3–6 months. However, if the debtor raises objections, files appeals or resists execution, the process can extend to 6–12 months or longer, particularly in complex or high-value matters involving multiple assets or jurisdictions.

In contrast, the DIFC and the ADGM offer faster and more streamlined enforcement procedures. Recognition of judgments or arbitral awards is often completed within a few weeks to 2–3 months, especially if uncontested. Execution is also more efficient, supported by common law mechanisms such as disclosure orders and contempt sanctions.

In practice, timelines depend heavily on the co-operation of the debtor, asset traceability and procedural challenges, but the DIFC and ADGM are generally quicker and more enforcement-friendly than onshore UAE courts.

A party may resist enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in the UAE on limited, well-defined grounds, which differ slightly between onshore courts and the DIFC/ADGM but broadly reflect international standards.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai courts), resistance to enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022). A court may refuse enforcement where:

• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction;
• the judgment is not final or enforceable;
• the defendant was not properly notified or denied due process;
• the judgment conflicts with a prior UAE judgment;
• enforcement would violate UAE public policy or morals; or
• reciprocity is not satisfied.

For foreign arbitral awards, refusal is governed by the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No 6 of 2018) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Grounds include:

• invalid arbitration agreement or incapacity;
• lack of proper notice or inability to present a case;
• award exceeds the scope of submission to arbitration;
• irregularity in composition of tribunal or procedure;
• award not yet binding or set aside at the seat; and
• non-arbitrability or violation of public policy.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, similar grounds apply under common law principles, with a strong pro-enforcement bias. Overall, resistance is narrowly confined to jurisdictional defects, procedural fairness and public policy concerns, reflecting the UAE’s arbitration-friendly approach.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dispute resolution in the UAE is not yet specifically regulated, but it is increasingly addressed through general legal, regulatory and ethical frameworks.

In onshore UAE, there is no dedicated legislation governing AI in litigation, arbitration or ADR. However, its use is indirectly regulated by broader laws, including the UAE Evidence Law (Federal Decree-Law No 35 of 2022), which governs admissibility of evidence, and the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022).

AI-generated outputs must comply with rules of evidence, authenticity and reliability, and parties remain responsible for the accuracy of submissions. Confidentiality, data protection and professional conduct obligations also constrain the use of AI tools, particularly in handling sensitive client information.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, there is similarly no AI-specific dispute resolution regime, but these jurisdictions adopt common law and technology-friendly approaches.

Courts and arbitral institutions are open to the use of AI for tasks such as document review or case management, provided it complies with procedural fairness, disclosure obligations and data protection standards.

Overall, AI in dispute resolution in the UAE is permitted but indirectly regulated, with emphasis on existing legal principles rather than AI-specific rules and increasing attention likely as adoption grows.

AI is increasingly influencing dispute resolution in the UAE, although its impact remains practical rather than formally regulated, and varies between onshore courts and the DIFC/ADGM. In onshore UAE, AI is primarily used by legal practitioners for document review, legal research, contract analysis and case strategy.

This has improved efficiency, speed and cost management, particularly in complex disputes involving large volumes of documents. Courts themselves are gradually integrating digital tools, but decision-making remains judge-driven, and AI does not replace judicial discretion. The use of AI is constrained by existing frameworks such as the UAE Evidence Law (Federal Decree-Law No 35 of 2022) and professional obligations relating to confidentiality and accuracy, meaning parties remain fully responsible for AI-assisted outputs.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, AI has a more pronounced impact due to common law procedures and higher reliance on disclosure and complex evidence. It is widely used in e-discovery, predictive analytics and case management, helping streamline proceedings and reduce costs. Arbitral proceedings seated in these jurisdictions also benefit from AI-assisted document production and analysis.

Overall, AI is enhancing efficiency, cost-effectiveness and case management, but it does not alter core legal principles, with courts maintaining full control over adjudication and evidentiary assessment.

Courts in the UAE have increasingly embraced technology, including elements of AI, to improve efficiency, though adoption remains institutional and supportive rather than determinative.

In onshore UAE (including Dubai courts), courts have implemented digital case management systems, e-filing, virtual hearings and automated administrative processes, which incorporate AI-assisted tools to streamline workflow. These developments have significantly improved speed, accessibility and case handling efficiency, particularly after the shift towards remote proceedings. However, AI is not used for judicial decision-making, and judges retain full control over assessment of facts and law. Its role remains administrative and assistive.

In the DIFC and the ADGM, courts are more technology-forward, aligning with common law jurisdictions. AI and advanced analytics are used in e-discovery, document management and case tracking, improving procedural efficiency in complex disputes. These courts are also more receptive to AI-assisted legal processes adopted by parties.

Looking ahead, AI in UAE dispute resolution is likely to evolve towards:

• greater integration in case management and document analysis;
• increased use in online dispute resolution (ODR) and arbitration; and
• the development of regulatory and ethical frameworks governing AI use

Overall, while courts have embraced AI to enhance efficiency, its future lies in augmentation rather than replacement of judicial functions, with growing but carefully controlled adoption.