Alim Khamis, Partner and Head of Disputes Middle considers recent trends and developments within the UAE international arbitration landscape.
International arbitration trends
In a continuing trend, construction and real estate disputes dominate the UAE institutional caseload and account for more than two-thirds of cases at arbitrateAD (a major arbitral institution in Abu Dhabi). The same sectors account for approximately 60% of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre’s caseload.
While construction remains dominant, certain trends are emerging across a variety of sectors in arbitration generally. Increasingly, parties are seeking to negotiate and agree a more comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism as part of their contracts, with arbitration stipulated as the last resort. The practical effect of this is that dispute resolution is becoming a longer process given that several steps must be completed under the contract prior to proceeding to arbitration if the matter is not settled beforehand.
Recourse to arbitration is not a new development even if the contractual steps required to proceed to arbitration are more extensive and bespoke than in prior years. Such mandatory pre-arbitration steps include, but are not limited to, a non-binding expert opinion to be rendered within a narrow timeframe or the reintroduction of Dispute Adjudication Boards, which were not commonly used in the UAE previously (and, in fact, expressly removed from contracts). arbitrateAD’s introduction of mediation and adjudicator-appointment rules reflects this evolving landscape.
Recent geopolitical events have also resulted in disputes that require immediate management prior to reaching arbitration, considering that commercial parties may prefer to preserve supply chain arrangements pending a final determination on the merits in arbitration. Those measures can take the form of emergency adjudication, partial settlements or contractual amendment. Here, the relevant trend is not simply more negotiation, but the use of alternative dispute resolution to keep projects afloat and supply chains operational in exceptional circumstances.
Another notable and welcome trend is one regarding arbitrator authority. In past years, it was common for a sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators to consent to several extensions of time or tolerate procedural delays in order to avoid any allegations of arbitrator bias or procedural unfairness. Over the past 12 months, there appears to have been a modified approach by which arbitrators adhere to procedural timetables agreed by the parties and grant short extensions in exceptional circumstances. This trend demonstrates that arbitrators can keep to agreed timetables and ensure that an arbitration progresses in a timely manner while also affording parties procedural fairness.
Case developments
DIFC Court of Appeal
For the first time in its history, the DIFC Court of Appeal upheld a challenge to an arbitral award in the case of Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006.
Briefly, the facts were as follows: an arbitral tribunal dismissed a customer’s complaints relating to fraud and negligence against its bank, save for breach of regulatory duty, for which the bank was held liable. However, the unusual feature of this case was that the successful ground of breach was never pleaded and first presented only in a post-hearing brief after the hearing was concluded.
The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the bank was deprived of natural justice and unfairness considering that it was not given an opportunity to defend itself against the one claim that was upheld. The Court of Appeal held that to ensure fairness for both parties, the unpleaded claim could have been put to the bank such that the bank could have responded via a supplemental post-hearing brief.
As a result, the Court of Appeal set aside parts of the arbitral award containing the majority’s decision on breach of regulatory duty.
The decision is significant because it demonstrates that while the UAE is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, arbitral awards will be scrutinised carefully and potentially set aside if fundamental principles of natural justice or fairness are not met.
Court of Cassation
A separate case decided by the Court of Cassation addressed a perennial matter regarding the assignment of rights and arbitration agreements. The case concerned a third-party funding agreement. Under such agreements, a party agrees to finance a litigation or arbitration in exchange for a portion of the monies recovered should the action be successful. One of the matters considered by the Court addressed the assignment of rights (including arbitration).
The Court reaffirmed that an assignment of rights also includes an arbitration agreement (should such a provision exist in the relevant contract). As a result, the assignee is bound by the arbitration clause and the counterparty is entitled to commence arbitration against the assignee in respect of the assigned claim.
This case is significant because it reaffirms the principle that arbitration agreements are capable of assignment and can be invoked accordingly. If there is to be a waiver of arbitration, it must be established expressly and unequivocally. Any argument that seeks to establish waiver via “indirect means” such as verbal discussions or vague references is unlikely to succeed.
Parties can and do seek to rely on ambiguously worded or indirect emails or text messages in support of a claim that arbitration has been waived. Considering this decision, parties should tread cautiously in the context of an assignment to determine whether an arbitration agreement has been clearly and expressly revoked.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal
The Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal (CJT) was established by decree in 2024 and was formerly known as the Joint Judicial Committee. The CJT has two mandates: (i) to determine which court has jurisdiction where a conflict arises between the DIFC Courts and onshore courts; and (ii) to determine which judgment will prevail where both an onshore court and the DIFC Courts have issued conflicting judgments.
In the case of Serene Resources DMCC v Energen DMCC, both parties to the dispute were entities headquartered in Dubai. Having obtained a successful result in proceedings administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for a Dubai-seated arbitration, Energen sought to file enforcement proceedings in the DIFC Courts.
The DIFC Courts issued an order to uphold and enforce the arbitral award and additionally issued an order to freeze Serene Resources’ assets globally. One week after these orders were issued, Serene Resources commenced court proceedings before the Dubai (onshore) courts to invalidate the award and also filed a request with the DIFC Courts to postpone the implementation of the award until a final judgment was issued in the local court proceedings.
Subsequently, the case came before the CJT. The CJT started with the principle that onshore Dubai courts hold general jurisdiction in accordance with applicable law (in this case, the UAE Federal Arbitration Law). The CJT went on to state that none of the preconditions that would render DIFC Courts as the appropriate forum in this case were met: (i) neither party was a DIFC entity; (ii) there was no express agreement to opt into the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction; and (iii) there were no relevant assets in the DIFC.
For the reasons set out above, the CJT held that the DIFC Courts had no jurisdiction to consider Serene Resources’ enforcement and recognition claim and directed the DIFC Courts to suspend the order granted previously. The CJT found that the Dubai courts were the appropriate forum to adjudicate this dispute.
The upshot of this case is that it may be prudent for parties to await expiration of the 30-day period for challenging an award before commencing a recognition application in the DIFC Courts, albeit that different cases are very fact-specific and require independent assessment.
Revised 2026 ICC Rules
The revised Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) that took effect on 1 June 2026 contain changes that are particularly relevant because of the UAE’s growing role as an ICC seat and source of ICC cases.
Significant changes include:
- removal of mandatory Terms of Reference in standard cases;
- express provision for early determination of manifestly unmeritorious claims or claims manifestly beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction;
- a party may, at any stage of emergency arbitrator proceedings, request a preliminary order directing another party not to frustrate the purpose of the application. Such requests may be made and decided without notice to all other parties; and
- a new opt-in highly expedited procedure, with a final award expected within three months following the initial case management conference.
The stated purpose of the amended rules is to improve efficiency, clarity and case management while preserving the flexibility, neutrality and procedural integrity that underpin ICC arbitration.
Conclusion
It has been a relatively active year for arbitration developments. While construction and real estate form the bulk of arbitrations in the UAE, arbitral institutions have adapted to geopolitical circumstances that require prompt solutions in the interim by introducing mediation and adjudication capabilities. The revised ICC Rules also strengthen emergency arbitrator provisions and can be effective for those who are at risk of suffering imminent loss and damage.
Parties are also giving considerable thought to drafting dispute resolution clauses that provide for more than arbitration, often via a tiered dispute resolution process which requires several mandatory steps to be completed prior to commencing arbitration. In some cases, such a lengthy process is sensible given the type of sector concerned. In other cases, such clauses can often become protracted ones that enable one party to stall for tactical reasons.
The above-mentioned cases deal with salient issues, namely: assignment of arbitration agreements, conflicts of jurisdiction and the importance of procedural fairness in arbitrations.
* First published in Chambers International Arbitration 2026 Global Practice Guide for the UAE.