International arbitration is a well-established and increasingly popular method of dispute resolution in the UAE, particularly for commercial and construction disputes. The UAE has developed a robust legal framework for arbitration, highlighted by the enactments of Federal Law No 6 of 2018 (the “Federal Arbitration Law”), Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Law No 1 of 2008 (the “DIFC Arbitration Law”), and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Arbitration Regulations 2015 (the “ADGM Arbitration Regulations”), as well as its accession to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) in 2006 ‒ the latter allowing the parties the choice of onshore and freezone seats for their arbitrations.

Although international arbitration is most commonly used in cross-border transactions, domestic parties in the UAE tend to favour litigation in local courts for smaller or less complex disputes, owing to familiarity with the system and cost considerations. However, in high-value or technically complex sectors such as construction and real estate, even domestic parties may opt for arbitration ‒ especially where confidentiality and procedural flexibility are important.

The prevalence of international arbitration in the UAE is largely due to its reputation for being home to neutral centres and seats of arbitration. A further reason is that the UAE is very advanced in its jurisprudence of arbitration law. The UAE also hosts reputable institutions such as the DIAC (Dubai International Arbitration Centre), the ICC and ArbitrateAD. The common-law seats of the DIFC and ADGM are particularly popular, given the precedential system of law allowing for greater clarity and predictability in arbitration-related matters, such as the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the provision of supportive remedies.

There are a number of industries where international arbitration has experienced significant activity, as follows.

• Construction – the UAE in general has experienced rapid urban and rural development, with large-scale residential and commercial projects. The specialist nature of construction projects inevitably favours the use of experienced individuals and expert witnesses to resolve disputes, making construction disputes more suited to arbitration than court litigation.
• Energy and natural resources – there has been a lot of foreign investment in the energy sector of the UAE, as well as in the region more generally. This has resulted in foreign companies preferring the use of international arbitration as a system of dispute resolution more familiar to them.
• Corporate disputes – similarly, given the number of foreign investors and shareholders, the use of international arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is still the preferred method, particularly with common-law seats such as the DIFC and the ADGM.

The most common institutions used for international arbitration in the UAE are the DIAC (based in Dubai) and the ICC (based in Abu Dhabi). These two institutions are the longest-serving institutions in the UAE and boast the use of some of the most reputable arbitrators available. The abolition of the DIFC-LCIA in 2021 also meant that arbitrations resorting to the DIFC-LCIA rules will now be administered by the DIAC, thereby increasing its caseload.

In early 2024, the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation Arbitration Centre was abolished and replaced by ArbitrateAD. Although it was established more than a year ago, it is still too soon to gauge how often it has been used as the parties’ choice of institution when referring matters to arbitration. Parties will need time to understand the offering of ArbitrateAD before inserting ArbitrateAD as the nominated institution into their dispute resolution contracts.

All courts in the UAE will be able to hear disputes related to all arbitrations. There are specific commercial court divisions within the onshore courts that will hear all matters related to arbitrations ‒ from interim measures, orders in support of arbitration, through to recognition and enforcement.

The DIFC courts and the ADGM courts specifically have arbitration divisions that will anonymise the parties’ identities when publishing case decisions. There are dedicated judges who will hear all related claims, meaning that the parties will benefit from having their cases determined by experienced judges who were former arbitration practitioners.

The Federal Arbitration Law governs all onshore-seated arbitrations. Arbitrations seated in the DIFC are governed by the DIFC Arbitration Law and arbitrations seated in the ADGM are governed by the ADGM Arbitration Regulations.

All above-mentioned cited laws are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, as amended in 2006 (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”).

The key articles of the Federal Arbitration Law that differ from the UNCITRAL Model Law are as follows:

• the signatory of the arbitration agreement must have specific authority to enter into an arbitration agreement ‒ for example, the power of attorney specifically confers on the named individual the power enter into arbitration agreements (Article 4);
• arbitrations are confidential (Article 33(1));
• arbitration awards are to be challenged within 30 days (Article 54(2)), whereas the UNCITRAL Model Law sets a three-month time limit within which to challenge an award (Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law);
• the grounds for refusing to recognise or enforce arbitral awards are greater in the Federal Arbitration Law (Article 53 of the Federal Arbitration Law) when compared to Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law; and
• the provisions for interim measures are greatly expanded within the Federal Arbitration Law compared to the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The DIFC Arbitration Law is heavily influenced by the Model Law. However, some provisions within the DIFC Arbitration Law are not found within the UNCITRAL Model Law ‒ for example, confidentiality provisions and expanded provisions regarding interim measures and clarifying which provisions of the DIFC Arbitration Law are applicable depending on the seat of arbitration.

The ADGM Arbitration Regulations is also heavily influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law. The key differences/enhancements are that the ADGM Arbitration Regulations contains provisions as to confidentiality and the joinder of additional parties, as well as expanded provisions regarding interim measures.

There have not been any significant changes to UAE arbitration laws in the past year nor are there any pending.

Generally, the arbitration agreement needs to be in writing. The reference in a contract to any document containing an arbitration clause meets the requirement that the arbitration agreement must be in writing, as long as the reference is such to make the clause part of the contract.

As mentioned in 2.1 Governing Law, the Federal Arbitration Law contains a specific requirement that the arbitration agreement is entered into with specific authority (eg, through a power of attorney or special power to enter into arbitration agreements recorded on the company’s trade licence).

The DIFC Arbitration Law contains specific requirements where the dispute has arisen out of an employment contract or a contract for the supply of goods or services in a consumer setting, whereby an arbitration agreement cannot be enforced against the employee or consumer without their written consent or if they have already submitted to arbitration or unless the DIFC court has disapplied this specific provision.

The DIFC Arbitration Law and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations permit an arbitration agreement to be enforced if it is contained within an electronic communication, provided the information contained therein is accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference.

Although Article 41(2)(b)(i) and 44(1)(b)(vi) of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Article 58(2)(b)(i) of the ADGM Regulations provide for the possibility of certain subject matter not being capable of settlement by arbitration, there is no prescriptive list within either of these laws as to which matters may not be arbitrable.

The Federal Arbitration Law does not specify a list of non-arbitrable disputes. Given that arbitral awards may be set aside where the award offends against public policy, the source of non-arbitrable disputes derives from the public policy of the UAE. The following matters are generally accepted as being non-arbitrable (non-exhaustive):

• criminal cases;
• matters concerning personal status such as marriage, inheritance and lineage;
• matters of public governance;
• specific real estate matters such as the unilateral termination of off-plan property sale agreements;
• bankruptcy and insolvency matters; and
• disputes involving the state exercising public functions.

The general approach is that matters that are of a public law nature are generally not arbitrable. This follows from Article 3 of the UAE Civil Code Law No 5 of 1985, which stipulates as matters of public order “marriage, inheritance, and lineage, and matters relating to sovereignty, freedom of trade, the circulation of wealth, rules of private ownership, and the other rules and foundations upon which society is based.”

With regard to determining the law governing the arbitration agreement, national courts have applied the UAE Civil Code (as outlined in 3.2 Arbitrability) and the relevant arbitration legislation, in addition to considering previous court rulings to determine which matters would not be arbitrable.

The Federal Arbitration Law, the DIFC Arbitration Law, and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations all provide that the arbitration agreement is a separate agreement irrespective of the validity of the contract to which it belongs. The doctrine of separability is a fundamental principle enshrined within all arbitration legislation in force in the UAE.

There are no restrictions on the parties’ autonomy when it comes to selecting arbitrators in the UAE.

The default procedure is for the arbitral institution to select arbitrators where there has been a failure to nominate arbitrators or where two party-nominated arbitrators have failed to nominate a chairperson.

All three arbitration laws (the Federal Arbitration Law, the DIFC Arbitration Law, and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations) permit court intervention as a final resort to appoint arbitrators, meaning that the parties and the centre must have failed to appoint arbitrators ‒ assuming that the arbitration is not an ad hoc arbitration. If the arbitration is ad hoc and the parties failed to appoint arbitrator(s) in accordance with the arbitration agreement, or if no such appointing procedure is contained in the arbitration agreement, then the parties may seek assistance from the court of the seat of arbitration.

The DIFC court of first instance and the ADGM court would be required to give due regard to any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and to any other factors that will lead to the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. The DIFC court and the ADGM court will also consider the advisability of appointing an arbitrator of a nationality other than that of any party.

The onshore UAE courts are not limited in any way by the Federal Arbitration Law ‒ although the court may, if requested by any of the parties, request any arbitral entity in the UAE to provide it with a list of specialised individuals in arbitration.

Pursuant to Article 14 of the Federal Arbitration Law, an arbitrator may be disqualified if the circumstances give rise to serious doubts regarding impartiality or independence or if the conditions for the appointment of arbitrators have not been met, which includes any requirements agreed to by the parties under Article 10 of the Federal Arbitration Law. Section 20 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations and Article 18 of the DIFC Arbitration Law contain similar provisions.

The arbitration legislation has been reviewed in 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators in relation to the requirements of independence or impartiality.

The DIAC Rules 2022 contain certain requirements under Article 14. Arbitrators are required to sign a declaration of impartiality and independence, availability of time, and nationality (including an up-to-date CV). By accepting an appointment, arbitrators undertake a continuing duty to disclose any circumstances that may call into question or give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality, independence and/or availability. If any disclosure is made, then this will be communicated to the parties and other tribunal members.

The DIAC Arbitration Court has the discretion to refuse an appointment if it considers that the arbitrator lacks independence, impartiality or availability or is otherwise unsuitable.

Under Article 19 of the Federal Arbitration Law, the arbitral tribunal is permitted to determine any application pertaining to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, including whether the arbitration agreement exists, or is invalid, or does not cover the subject matter of the dispute.

Article 23 of the DIFC Arbitration Law provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections as to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.

Section 25 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations permits the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own substantive jurisdiction as to whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, whether the tribunal is properly constituted, and whether the arbitration agreement covers the matters submitted to arbitration.

Under Article 11 of the DIFC Arbitration Law, the DIFC court may perform the functions contained within Article 23(3), which deals with jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 23(3) of the DIFC Arbitration Law, jurisdiction may be dealt with as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits. If the arbitral tribunal determines as a preliminary matter that it has jurisdiction, then any party may request that the DIFC court decide the matter.

Under Section 27 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, the ADGM court may determine the question of jurisdiction if the tribunal has accepted jurisdiction.

Article 19(2) of the Federal Arbitration Law allows a party to request the court to determine jurisdiction where the arbitral tribunal has determined jurisdiction. Strict time limits apply pursuant to the law.

The consideration of jurisdiction by the courts is therefore limited to circumstances where the tribunal has accepted jurisdiction.

The courts of the UAE are generally supportive of arbitration if the relevant conditions precedent to arbitration have been substantially met or where the parties have clearly agreed to arbitrate their disputes. The slight disparity between the local courts and the common-law courts is in relation to jurisdiction clauses that are referenced in other documents and their incorporation, with the local courts taking the view that arbitration is the exception and therefore there must be clear evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes and be bound by any award.

Where the DIFC Arbitration Law applies, a party must challenge the tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction within 30 days.

The ADGM Arbitration Regulations does not stipulate a time limit, other than to state that the application to the court is to be made without delay.

The Federal Arbitration Law requires that a party makes its request to the court within 15 days from the date of becoming aware of the decision by the tribunal. The court must decide on the request within 30 days from the date of the submission of the request.

The standard of judicial review for questions of admissibility and jurisdiction is not explicitly stated in any of the laws. However, the language of the laws suggests that the appeals will be on a de novo basis ‒ given that the court is being asked to determine the question of jurisdiction, as opposed to carrying out a review of the decision on jurisdiction.

The DIFC court and the ADGM court have set precedents in issuing anti-suit injunctions in favour of arbitration. The courts will follow the English law principles that there is a high degree of probability that there is an arbitration agreement and such agreement has been breached.

The local UAE courts have not issued anti-suit injunctions to date as the approach taken is that if an arbitration agreement has not been pleaded at the first court hearing in the litigation, then the parties would find themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. However, the Dubai Court of Cassation in Case No 657 of 2025 ruled that Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law empowers tribunals to issue interim remedies, which would include anti-suit injunctions. Although this decision did not go further to rule that courts may issue anti-suit injunctions, it does show the shifting approach by the local courts in at least upholding anti-suit injunctions granted by arbitral tribunals.

The same approach applies in the DIFC court and the ADGM court. However, the common-law courts do permit the granting of anti-suit injunctions where the litigation has been brought in a foreign court, including other emirates.

Article 22 of the Federal Arbitration Law specifically permits the joinder of a third party only if that third party is a party to the arbitration agreement. The joinder also allows the parties and third party to make representations. The foregoing is mandatory law and therefore would take precedence over any institutional rule ‒ even contracted into – where the seat of arbitration is a seat other than the DIFC or the ADGM.

The key factors for joinder of a third party under the procedures outlined in Section 39 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations is if the third party is a party to the arbitration agreement or has consented to joinder in writing.

The DIFC Arbitration Law is silent on joinder, meaning that the tribunal will need to act in accordance with the institutional rules if applicable.

Interim remedies are permitted to be awarded by tribunals under all arbitration legislation in the UAE. These remedies are binding and enforceable, as long as they meet the enforcement criteria of the respective legislation.

The DIFC court and the ADGM court have powers to order interim measures. If the tribunal grants an interim measure, then the DIFC court and the ADGM court will consider an application for enforcement by a party. The conditions for enforcement or to refuse enforcement are contained within the DIFC Arbitration Law and the ADGM Arbitration Regulations.

The aforementioned courts can also grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations. There is no special limitation placed upon the granting of these interim orders. The most common forms of interim relief sought tend to be anti-suit injunctions, freezing orders, and orders for security for costs.

The Federal Arbitration Law allows for the court to take provisional or precautionary measures as deemed appropriate for existing or potential arbitrations (Article 18). Article 21 allows the tribunal to grant interim or precautionary measures, subject to Article 18 ‒ meaning that the court can grant interim measures. Article 36 confers powers to the court to order the production of evidence, which is effectively an interim order. The court is separately empowered to enforce interim measures upon an application by a party.

Article 21(2) of the Federal Arbitration Law allows the tribunal to order security from the party seeking the interim measure. In general, it is theoretically possible for the tribunal to more generally award security for costs as a standalone interim measure.

Article 24 of the DIFC Arbitration Law specifically allows tribunals/the DIFC court to order security for costs in connection with an interim measure. Given that security for costs is a common-law remedy in the context of court litigation, it is conceivable that a standalone remedy of security for costs could be available ‒ although in litigation is limited to the defendant seeking security from the claimant with a number of conditions needing to be met.

Section 29 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations specifically empowers the tribunal to order a claimant to provide security for the costs of the arbitration, with some caveats on how the power is to be exercised.

The arbitration laws of the UAE provide certain procedural requirements in respect of the conduct of the arbitration. These include the constitution of the tribunal, the commencement of the arbitration, statements of claim and defence, the use of lay and expert witnesses, and the rendering of the award.

The specific details of the procedure are predominantly left to the rules adopted by the parties within their arbitration agreements, such as the DIAC Rules, the ArbitrateAD Rules and the ICC Rules (as examples of the arbitral institutions in the UAE). If the arbitration is ad hoc, then it will similarly be for the parties and the tribunal to determine the applicable procedures.

The common procedural steps required by law relate to the formation of the arbitral tribunal, the commencement of arbitration, the pleadings, general considerations for the conduct of the arbitration, and the award itself.

There is a specific requirement that if the court is seised of a matter that is the subject of an arbitration agreement, then the court must refer the matter to arbitration upon the plea of the party relying on the arbitration agreement, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The plea must be made in the party’s first statement on the case.

The tribunal is empowered to determine its own jurisdiction, enshrining the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz. In addition, the tribunal has the power to order interim measures, hear witnesses (including lay and expert witnesses), and appoint an expert itself if required.

As regards the duties of arbitrators, they are required to treat the parties fairly, giving each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case (Section 33 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, Article 26 of the Federal Arbitration Law, and Article 25 of the DIFC Arbitration Law).

It is implicit in the Federal Arbitration Law, the ADGM Arbitration Regulations and the DIFC Arbitration Law that the arbitral tribunal has a duty to issue a final award. However, Article 47 of the Federal Arbitration Law permits the arbitral tribunal to refuse delivery of the final arbitral award where there has been a failure to pay all costs of the arbitration.

Article 33(4) of the Federal Arbitration Law allows parties to engage experts, lawyers or other persons to represent them before the arbitral tribunal, at their own expense.

The DIFC Arbitration Law does not contain a similar provision and the law is silent on this point.

The ADGM Arbitration Regulations contains a defined term within Schedule 1 defining “party representatives” as any person who appears for a party, whether they hold a legal qualification or otherwise and irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are admitted to practise law in any event.

In general, the parties are required to state their cases at the pleadings stage. It is at the parties’ discretion whether to exhibit any documentary evidence that they wish to rely on.

If the arbitration proceeds on a memorial basis, then the parties will be required to submit all documentary evidence and supporting witness statements with the pleading. If the arbitration proceeds on the common-law basis, then the parties will be free to submit their documents at the production stage.

The tribunal and the parties will agree which basis to proceed with their arbitration on in line with any institutional rules as applicable.

In relation to the giving of evidence at the hearing, Article 36 of the UAE Arbitration Law provides for an arbitral tribunal ‒ of its own initiative or pursuant to a party’s request – to seek the court’s assistance in taking evidence.

A witness may, therefore, be required to appear before the arbitral tribunal to:

• “submit oral testimony”; and/or
• “present documents or any evidence thereof”.

Article 34 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Regulation 48 of the ADGM Regulations provide the arbitral tribunal or a party (with approval of the arbitral tribunal) with the right to request “assistance in taking evidence”.

The rules of arbitral institutions ‒ for example, the DIAC Rules (Article 25.2) and the ArbitrateAD Rules (Article 31.2) ‒ provide the arbitral tribunal with the discretion to adopt its preferred rules on evidence.

The rules of evidence in arbitral proceedings seated in the UAE will be left to the parties to make submissions on or agree and for the tribunal to ultimately determine. The UAE Civil Code contains a provision that the burden of proof starts with the claimant, which shifts to the defendant to disprove the claimant’s case. The UAE Evidence Law (Federal Law No 10 of 1992) generally governs the procedural requirements for presenting evidence in civil and commercial disputes.

This DIAC Rules 2022 and ArbirateAD Rules 2024 contain provisions stating that the burden of proof is on each party to prove the facts in support of its respective case. The standard of proof is not stipulated and will be left to the parties and the tribunal to determine.

Article 36 the Federal Arbitration Law allows the tribunal to submit a request to “the president of the court”, who may decide to:

• impose, on the witness who unduly fails to attend or refrains from giving testimony, the penalties stipulated in the laws in force in the state;
• order a third party to produce any documents in its possession that are necessary to decide on the dispute; or
• issue orders for judicial delegation.

These powers allow an arbitral tribunal to access the president of the federal or local appeal court and require the production of evidence.

Article 48 of the Federal Arbitration Law only refers to the confidentiality of the arbitral award as opposed to the arbitral proceedings. However, it can safely be deduced that if the arbitral award is considered confidential, such confidentiality would also extend to the proceedings leading up to the award.

Article 14 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Article 45 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations both expressly provide for the confidentiality of the proceedings, subject to the general exceptions:

• if the parties agreed otherwise; and/or
• if publication is required in legal proceedings.

Article 41 of the Federal Arbitration Law contains the requirements for an arbitral award. The requirements are:

• the award must be in writing;
• if the tribunal is three-member, the award must be by at least a majority and, if the opinions are divergent, then the chairperson shall issue the award unless the parties agree otherwise – dissenting opinions must be noted down;
• it must be signed, with any refusal to sign bearing the reasons for the refusal – although the award is only legally binding if signed by the majority;
• reasons for the award must be stated unless agreed otherwise or the applicable law does not require the giving of reasons;
• the award must include the names and addresses of the litigants, the names and nationalities of the arbitrators, a copy of the arbitration agreement, a summary of the litigants’ arguments, statements and documents, the dispositive award, the reasons for the award if required, and the date and place of issuance;
• the award must record the seat of arbitration; and
• the date of the award must be included.

The award must be rendered within six months from the date of the first arbitration hearing, which is usually the case management hearing. The tribunal may extend the time limit by six months unless the parties agree a longer period.

Article 38 of the DIFC Arbitration Law stipulates the following requirements:

• the award must be in writing and signed by the arbitrator(s), with at least the majority signing the award and with the reasons for the omission of a signature stated;
• the reasons for the award must be stated unless the parties agreed otherwise or if there is a settlement;
• the award must record the date and seat of the arbitration;
• after the award is made, a copy signed by the arbitrators must be delivered to each party; and
• the tribunal must fix the costs of the arbitration as outlined in Article 38(5).

The DIFC Arbitration Law does not stipulate a time limit within which the award must be rendered.

Section 55 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations stipulates the following requirements:

• the award must be in writing;
• the reasons for the award must be stated unless the parties agreed otherwise or if there is a settlement;
• the award must record the date and seat of the arbitration;
• the award may be electronically signed;
• an electronic copy of the award is to be supplied to the parties, with a hard copy to be supplied if requested; and
• the tribunal must fix the costs of the arbitration as outlined in Section 55(6) ‒ if the tribunal has not fixed costs, then the parties may seek an award on costs within 30 days of receiving the award.

The ADGM Arbitration Regulations also do not stipulate a time limit within which the award must be rendered.

Article 37 of the Federal Arbitration Law and Article 35 of the DIFC Arbitration Law specifically state that the subject matter of the dispute shall be determined by the substantive law as chosen by the parties. However, the Federal Arbitration Law does not explicitly provide for the scenario where there is no agreement on the applicable law. It is to be inferred that, in the absence of agreement, the tribunal is to then apply the conflict of laws.

Article 35(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law specifies that, where the parties have not agreed on the substantive law, the tribunal shall apply the law determined by the conflict of laws that it considers applicable ‒ giving the parties the right to agree in writing that the tribunal may apply the law or rules of law that it considers most appropriate.

Section 51 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations specifically deals with remedies. It provides that:

• the parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal with regard to remedies;
• subject to any contrary agreement, the tribunal may grant any permissible remedy under the applicable substantive law; and
• unless otherwise agreed and subject to the applicable substantive law, the tribunal may grant the following remedies:
1. declaratory relief;
2. payment of a sum of money in any currency; and
3. the same powers exercisable by the court such as a mandatory or prohibitory injunction, specific performance of a contract that is not related to land, and order rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or other document.

The powers cited here are not exhaustive. Therefore, the remedies available to the tribunal will depend on the substantive law that is applicable.

The Federal Arbitration Law and the DIFC Arbitration Law do not contain any specific provisions on interest. It will therefore be a matter for determination either as agreed by the parties or on the application of the applicable substantive law.

Section 52 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations specifically allows for interest to be awarded where the parties have agreed. Unless there is contrary agreement, interest may be granted in accordance with the applicable substantive law. Furthermore, the tribunal will have the power to award simple or compound interest on the whole or part of the awarded amount from such date deemed appropriate until the date of the award, and additionally award interest accrued on a simple or compound basis from the date of the award until satisfaction of the award.

There is no scope for appealing an arbitral award under any of the arbitration laws.

Article 50 of the Federal Arbitration Law, Article 40 of the DIFC Arbitration Law, and Section 57 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations provide that the parties may seek correction of errors in the award.

The only other recourse parties have under the respective laws is to seek to set the arbitral award aside.

Parties cannot agree to exclude or expand the scope of challenge under any of the arbitration laws in the UAE.

In accordance with the criteria for setting an award aside, the standard is one of review and not de novo.

The UAE acceded to the New York Convention on 21 Aug 2006.

The legal requirements for the recognition of an arbitral award differ depending on whether the arbitral awards are domestic or foreign.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by the UAE federal courts or the DIFC courts is generally straightforward and in general compliance with the New York Convention.

The location of the assets against which the arbitral award is to be enforced will ultimately determine the court in which the enforcement proceedings are brought.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Prior to the introduction of the UAE Arbitration Law, it was commonplace for arbitral awards to be nullified for very idiosyncratic reasons native to the UAE. The recent introduction of the UAE Arbitration Law has overcome some but not all of the possible reasons for award nullification that existed under the previous legislation.

Article 4 of the UAE Arbitration Law may continue to expose arbitral awards to the risk of nullification. The grounds for such nullification could be that a natural person (or a representative thereof) entered into an agreement to arbitrate when they were not legally competent to do so. An agreement to arbitrate entered into by such individuals (or a representative thereof), would be rendered void.

The UAE Arbitration Law also retains certain procedural requirements that may affect the arbitral process. Article 61 of the UAE Civil Procedural Code, for example, requires that “[t]he attorney may not [...] go to arbitration[,] abandon litigation […] or undertake any other action for which the law requires special authorisation”.

The requirement for specific powers of attorney for those other than the “general manager” named in the company’s trade licence appears to have survived the introduction of the UAE Arbitration Law.

Article 41 of the UAE Arbitration Law prescribes the criteria for an arbitral award, which includes the requirement that the nationalities of the arbitrators are stated in the final award. One very positive provision of Article 41 confirms that an arbitral award will be deemed to have been signed at the seat of the arbitration, regardless of where it was actually signed.

With regard to the reasons for an award, Article 41(4) of the UAE Arbitration Law, Article 38(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law, Article 55(2) of the ADGM Regulations, Article 34.4(g) of the DIAC Rules, and Article 41.3 of the ArbitrateAD Rules all provide that the award must be reasoned unless the parties agree otherwise.

Approach of Courts

Article 44(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law expressly confers on the DIFC court the discretion to adjourn its decision on recognition and enforcement if an application has been made for the setting aside or suspension of an arbitral award to the court of the seat of arbitration, with the responding party to pay security.

Section 62(1)(c) of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations has a similar provision.

Article 56(1) of the Federal Arbitration Law confers a discretion on the court to stay execution of the award if it is “based on serious grounds”. This can be interpreted to include an application to set aside the award to the court of the seat of arbitration. The courts are likely to take a cautious approach and await determination of the court of the seat of arbitration.

State Immunity

Article 242 of Federal Decree Law No 4 of 2022 Promulgating the Civil Procedure Code provides that public property owned by the State or any of the emirates may not be attached. This means that –although there is no specific defence of sovereign immunity – in reality the UAE is immune from having any award executed against public property owned by it or, in the case of an individual emirate as a respondent, against any public property owned by the emirate in question.

At the emirate level in Dubai, Article 3 of Dubai Law No 3 of 1996 Concerning Government Claims provides that the courts may not hear any claim against the ruler of Dubai, the deputy ruler of Dubai or the Crown Prince of Dubai without obtaining the approval of the ruler of Dubai. It further prohibits the execution of a debt or enforcement of an obligation against the ruler of Dubai or the government of Dubai by taking possession, seizure, sale by public auction, or acquisition by any other legal process of the property or assets of the ruler of Dubai or the government of Dubai, irrespective of whether a final judgment has been obtained.

The local courts and the common-law courts generally approach recognition and enforcement on the basis that the party requesting the annulment or setting aside of an arbitral award must prove to the court the statutory reasons to set aside the arbitral award.

Generally speaking, the standards applied to enforcement are domestic standards. However, the domestic standard will likely be influenced by international public policy standards, provided that the international standards are not incompatible with other UAE public policy.

The arbitration laws in the UAE do not contain any provisions on class-action or multiple-party arbitrations.

However, the DIAC Rules 2022 permits the joint nomination of party-nominated arbitrators for claimants and respondents (see Article 12.5) ‒ although there is no specific rule on the bringing of multiple party claims.

Article 9 of the ArbitrateAD Rules 2024 permits multiple parties to bring claims prior to the constitution of the tribunal.

Legal representatives within the UAE must comply with Federal Law No 34 of 2022 and Cabinet Decision 9 of 2025.

The Dubai Legal Affairs Department has issued a draft code of conduct to Dubai-registered advocate and legal consultants ‒ although primary legislation will take precedence.

Section 44 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations outlines party and party representative conduct.

Arbitrators do not have a unified code of conduct. Guidance may be taken from the International Bar Associations publications. However, arbitrators must comply with their duties outlined within primary legislation (eg, independence and impartiality).

Section 37 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations requires that a party must notify all parties and the members of the arbitral tribunal – whether nominated or appointed ‒ of the existence of a third-party funding agreement (including the identity of the third-party funder) by written notice.

The Federal Arbitration Law and the DIFC Arbitration Law do not contain any provisions on third-party funding.

Article 22 of the DIAC Rules 2022 also requires the disclosure of a third-party funding arrangement, including the identity of the funder and whether or not there is a commitment to an adverse costs order. There is a restriction imposed under Article 22.2 ‒ namely, that a funding arrangement cannot be entered into if it will or may give rise to a conflict of interest between the funder and the tribunal.

The requirement to disclose a funding arrangement is also contained within Article 48 of the ArbitrateAD Rules 2024.

Article 8 of the DIAC Rules 2022 permits consolidation of multiple arbitrations dependent on certain conditions.

A similar provision exists at Article 12 of the ArbitrateAD Rules 2024.

Section 38 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations permits consolidation.

The Federal Arbitration Law and the DIFC Arbitration Law are silent on consolidation and therefore do not expressly prohibit consolidation.

It would follow that if the parties agreed to arbitration pursuant to the DIAC Rules or ArbitrateAD Rules, irrespective of which seat is nominated within the UAE, then consolidation would be permissible.

An award will be binding on a third party if that third party was a party to the arbitration ‒ for example, through joinder. Otherwise, there are no provisions within the arbitration laws on the binding effect of arbitral awards on third parties.