Tag: Dispute Resolution

The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), known for its openness and diversity, is home to a population that includes a wide range of nationalities and cultures. In recognition of this demographic reality, the UAE has shown a clear commitment to ensuring that its legal framework reflects inclusivity and safeguards the rights of all residents, regardless of nationality or religion. A notable example of this approach is the enactment of Law No. 14 of 2021 Regarding Civil Marriage and Its Effects (as amended) in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (“CMEAD”).

This law represents a significant shift in the regulation of personal status matters, particularly for non-Muslim residents, and positions the UAE as a legal pioneer within GCC and the Arab world. The CMEAD adopts a progressive stance on civil marriage, divorce, and succession issues, setting a new standard in family law legislation. This inBrief examines the core objectives of the CMEAD, analyses the impact of its amendments on jurisdictional scope, and highlights selected judicial applications that reflect its evolving interpretation.

Core Objectives of the CMEAD

The CMEAD was enacted with several strategic aims:

> To establish a modern judicial framework for adjudicating personal status disputes involving foreigners.

> To position Abu Dhabi as a regional legal innovator, being among the first jurisdictions in the Arab world to adopt civil legislation regulating family matters in line with international best practices.

> To provide culturally and linguistically accessible procedures, allowing individuals to engage with a legal system aligned with their backgrounds and expectations.

> To promote the best interests of children, especially in divorce proceedings, by emphasizing shared parental responsibility and equal treatment.

These objectives are particularly significant given the prior legal landscape, where foreigners were typically subject to the Muslim personal status law unless they proactively requested the application of their national law – a burdensome process involving translations, legalizations, and complex procedures. The CMEAD thus offers a practical, accessible, and inclusive alternative not only for non-Muslim residents but potentially for Muslim residents as well, as discussed below.

Expanding the Scope: Amendments to the CMEAD

While legislative amendments often arise in response to implementation challenges, the CMEAD underwent substantial revisions prior to its effective date, reflecting a proactive legislative vision.

One of the key amendments involved renaming the legislation from the “Law on Personal Status for Non-Muslim Foreigners” to the more inclusive “Law on Civil Marriage and Its Effects.” Furthermore, references to “non-Muslim foreigners” were replaced by the term “persons addressed by the provisions of this law,” defined to include “citizens or foreigners, non-Muslim, male or female.” This expanded language suggests an intentional broadening of the law’s applicability.

The 2022 Executive Regulations provide further clarity. Article 5 outlines the categories of persons covered by the CMEAD, which include:

> Non-Muslim citizens;

> Foreigners whose home countries do not primarily apply Islamic Sharia in personal status matters;

> Special cases determined by administrative decision.

This amendment indicates that the CMEAD is no longer limited to non-Muslim foreigners but may also extend to Muslim foreigners from countries where Sharia is not the dominant legal framework for personal status. This distinguishes it from Federal Law No. 41 of 2022 on Civil Personal Status, which remains limited to non-Muslims and applies across other Emirates.

Judicial Application of the CMEAD

The practical application of the CMEAD has been shaped significantly by judicial interpretation, with Abu Dhabi courts demonstrating flexibility and a commitment to the inclusive spirit of the law.

One notable area of application is wills and succession. Courts have confirmed that both non-Muslim citizens and foreigners from non-Sharia-based jurisdictions may freely dispose of their estates under the CMEAD, provided the will is valid and officially registered. Where no Will exists, and no heir requests the application of a foreign law, the default CMEAD rules apply. These include:

> Equal division of the estate among heirs, regardless of gender;

> The surviving spouse receives half of the estate;

> The remaining half is divided equally among children;

> In the absence of children, the estate passes equally to parents, or to siblings if the parents are deceased.

Additionally, the courts have acknowledged the right of Muslim foreigners, in certain cases, to opt into the CMEAD’s provisions, including in the drafting of Wills and adjudication of family law matters. This represents a significant step away from a rigid application of Sharia-based inheritance rules and underscores the judiciary’s role in supporting legislative reform.

Conclusion

The CMEAD reflects the UAE’s broader commitment to building a legal system that embraces diversity and protects individual rights irrespective of nationality or religion. Through its inclusive objectives, broadened jurisdictional scope, and progressive judicial interpretation, the law marks a transformative shift in the regulation of family matters.

By providing a civil legal framework that is accessible, culturally sensitive, and internationally aligned, the CMEAD positions Abu Dhabi – and the UAE more broadly – as a leader in legal modernization within the region. It stands as a model for how jurisdictions can reform family law to reflect the realities of globalized, multicultural societies while maintaining legal clarity and social cohesion. ■

The UAE continued its efforts to promote mediation as a form of dispute resolution through Cabinet Decision No. 56 of 2025, which regulates the establishment of private mediation centres and branches of foreign mediation institutions in the UAE. This follows the enactment of Federal Decree Law No. 40 of 2023, the UAE’s first standalone legislation on mediation and conciliation in civil and commercial disputes, and the UAE’s accession to the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention on Mediation) in May 2024.

The Law

Federal Decree Law No. 40 of 2023:

– applies to civil and commercial disputes, unless excluded by law;

– does not apply within the UAE’s financial free zones (the DIFC and the ADGM), unless a mediator or mediation centre based in the financial free zone is mediating a dispute that relates to the UAE mainland;

– allows for mediation to deal with the subject matter of the dispute as a whole or a part thereof;

– allows for mediation to be either voluntary (by agreement) or court-directed during litigation;

– encourages frank discourse and good faith attempts at settlement by ensuring that the statements, proposals, admissions, documents, and information disclosed or exchanged during the mediation process are strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed in any subsequent contested proceedings, except in limited circumstances; and

– provides that settlement agreements reached through mediation, once ratified by a court, are enforceable as judgments of the court.

Criminal, labour, rental, and personal status disputes, urgent or interim orders and matters of public order cannot be the subject of mediation conducted under the mediation and conciliation centres established under the law. However, it preserves the parties’ right to seek urgent or interim judicial relief from the competent court.

The Cabinet Decision

Cabinet Decision No. 56 of 2025 regulates the licensing of private mediation centres and branches of foreign mediation centres in the UAE, but does not apply to private mediation centres and foreign branches that are licensed to operate in the financial free zones, unless they conduct their activities outside the financial free zone. Key requirements for licensing include:

– obtaining prior approval from a committee within the Ministry of Justice or local judicial authority;

– obtaining a license from the Competent Authority in each Emirate;

– establishing an independent office with adequate IT systems and insurance cover;

– appointing a qualified Director with legal or mediation experience; and

– maintaining both a public register of mediators and an internal electronic register.

Additionally, a foreign mediation centre wishing to establish a branch in the UAE must also provide proof that it has provided mediation services for at least five years at the time of submitting the application to open a branch in the UAE.

Why it matters to businesses

Mediation is increasingly recognised as an effective means of dispute resolution, not only due to its cost-efficiency, but also in terms of preserving relationships between commercial parties, which often deteriorate in the course of contentious litigation or arbitration proceedings. Until recently, the absence of a legal framework supporting mediation deterred certain parties from opting for mediation, particularly due to the lack of legal safeguards regarding confidentiality of information submitted in the course of mediation and its use in subsequent legal proceedings, should mediation fail. Following the legislative developments set out above, the UAE now has a robust legal framework for mediation, and with the Cabinet Decision clarifying the requirements to establish mediation centres (and branches of foreign mediation centres) in the UAE, one hopes that parties will soon have access to experienced mediators in the UAE.

However, it is important for parties to bear in mind that mediation is not appropriate for the resolution of all disputes, and contracts providing for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation must be carefully drafted. For example, mandatory mediation may not be effective where the relationship between the parties has irretrievably eroded, and having a provision for mandatory mediation may only serve to delay the parties in getting to a final resolution of their dispute. Provision for optional mediation (bearing in mind that parties may voluntarily agree to mediation during the course of most adversarial proceedings), on balance, appears to be a better approach. ■

Advancing Dispute Resolution in Dubai: Strengthening ADR for a More
Inclusive Legal Future:

Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) has become a cornerstone of
modern legal systems, offering faster, more cost-effective, and flexible
pathways for resolving disputes outside traditional court structures. In
keeping with this global trend, Dubai established the Centre for Amicable
Settlement of Disputes (the “Centre”) under Law No. 16 of 2009, aiming to
promote consensual dispute resolution and reduce the burden on the
judiciary.

Reflecting the rising significance of ADR and a continued drive for
procedural reform, the President of Dubai Courts issued Decision No. (4) of
2025 (the “Decision”), published on 26 March 2025. This Decision repeals
and replaces Decision No. (8) of 2022 and introduces a more refined
jurisdictional framework for the Centre. It also signals a broader legislative
intent to promote social justice by enhancing access to dispute resolution
mechanisms for people of determination, senior citizens, and economically
vulnerable groups.

This inBrief outlines the main features of Decision No. (4) of 2025, with
particular focus on the jurisdictional reallocation of estate-related property
disputes, the harmonisation of legal terminology across related legislative
instruments, the introduction of new restrictions on expert appointment
applications prior to litigation, the enhancement of procedural safeguards
for vulnerable groups, and the implications of limiting party autonomy in
selecting alternative dispute resolution pathways.

Key Highlights of Decision No. (4) of 2025

1. Jurisdictional Shift in Estate-Related Property Disputes

A major development under the Decision is the removal of the Centre’s
jurisdiction over estate-related property disputes. Specifically, Article 1(1)
excludes disputes involving the subdivision of co-owned undivided property
where such issues are tied to estate matters. This adjustment aligns with
Decree No. (25) of 2023, which established the Probate Court and granted it
exclusive authority over estate-related claims, including those concerning
co-owned property.

This jurisdictional transfer consolidates estate litigation within a specialised
forum that is better equipped to handle the sensitive nature of family and inheritance disputes. The Probate Court’s innovative procedural tools and
focused mandate are intended to preserve familial harmony while resolving
complex legal issues efficiently.

2. Harmonisation of Legal Terminology

The Decision reaffirms the Centre’s authority to ratify conciliation
agreements, regardless of the claim’s value—a principle retained from the
previous 2022 Decision. However, the language has been updated to reflect
terminology used in Law No. (18) of 2021 Regulating Conciliation in the
Emirate of Dubai. This alignment promotes greater legal consistency and
clarity, particularly in defining a “Conciliation Agreement” as one reached
under the guidance of a Conciliator following the procedures laid out by
law.

This terminological harmonisation ensures coherence across legislative
instruments, facilitating smoother legal interpretation and application.

3. Narrowing the Scope of Expert Appointment Applications

The Decision introduces clearer conditions for the Centre’s jurisdiction over
expert appointment requests prior to litigation. Now, such applications are
only accepted if:

– The dispute falls within the jurisdiction of Dubai Courts

– The matter is not already pending before a court

– The issue has not been previously adjudicated

These restrictions are a departure from the broader scope under the 2022
Decision, which permitted expert appointments without such limitations.
The Centre previously rejected jurisdictional objections, such as those
based on arbitration clauses, on the grounds that applications for the
appointment of an expert do not constitute formal substantive claims. As
such, these applications were considered not to affect jurisdictional
objections, which could instead be raised once a substantive case was
formally filed before the court.

Based on the Decision, the Centre can no longer entertain expert requests
for disputes subject to arbitration clauses or those already before the
courts. While the goal is to streamline case flow and eliminate duplication,
this change may limit access to neutral, pre-litigation expert assessments—
often crucial for parties seeking early clarity. We will have to wait and see
how the Centre will practically address this situation in order to have a
definitive answer.

4. Expanded Jurisdiction to Protect Vulnerable Groups

The Decision expands the Centre’s jurisdiction to include specific categories
of vulnerable individuals. These include disputes involving Emirati citizens
aged 60 and above, provided the claim value does not exceed AED 1,000,000;
cases where one of the parties is a person with a disability; and matters
involving female beneficiaries of financial assistance under Law No. (7) of
2012.

These reforms signal a clear legislative intent to enhance access to justice
for communities that may face legal and procedural barriers. By explicitly
prioritising the needs of the elderly, people of determination, and
economically disadvantaged women, the law promotes inclusivity, fairness,
and social equity in legal processes.

5. Restriction of Party Autonomy in Referring Disputes

One of the more notable changes in the 2025 Decision is the removal of the parties’ ability to jointly refer disputes to the Centre, even if the dispute fell outside its formal jurisdiction. This flexibility, previously allowed under Decision No. (8) of 2022, is no longer available.

Now, access to the Centre is limited to cases where a conciliation agreement already exists and is submitted for ratification. While it may be aimed at procedural clarity, it restricts parties’ autonomy to voluntarily opt for ADR through the Centre, potentially narrowing the avenues for early dispute resolution.

Conclusion

Decision No. (4) of 2025 reflects Dubai’s continued efforts to modernise and strengthen its dispute resolution infrastructure. By refining jurisdictional boundaries, unifying legal terminology, and offering increased protections for vulnerable groups, the Emirate demonstrates a forward-looking commitment to justice that is both efficient and inclusive.

While some changes, such as restrictions on expert appointments and the removal of mutual referral flexibility, may limit certain procedural options, they also aim to streamline access to the appropriate forums and promote clarity in ADR processes. Overall, the Decision signifies a new chapter in the evolution of ADR in Dubai, reinforcing the Emirate’s role as a progressive legal hub in the region. ■

When TS Eliot wrote in 1922 that “April is the cruellest month” he likely never envisaged extreme weather of the proportions experienced in the UAE on the 16th of April 2024.  What, then, of the parties to a contract?  Ought they to have foreseen this and catered for it in the terms of their agreement? And how should the inevitable losses caused be allocated between them under UAE law?  As the UAE continues its recovery, contracting parties across all commercial sectors will likely be considering these questions very carefully.

The starting point, as always, will be the terms of the contract itself.  However, in the absence of the parties reaching an agreement as to what these require, Article 249 of the UAE Civil Code will undoubtedly feature prominently in any dispute. Article 249 provides (in translation) as follows:

“If exceptional circumstances of a public nature which could not have been foreseen occur as a result of which the performance of the contractual obligation, even if not impossible, becomes oppressive for the obligor so as to threaten him with grave loss, it shall be permissible for the judge, in accordance with the circumstances and after weighing up the interests of each party, to reduce the oppressive obligation to a reasonable level if justice so requires, and any agreement to the contrary shall be void.”

James Whelan, writing in the Ministry of Justice’s Commentary on the UAE Civil Code, regards this provision as an exception to the general rule that it is not the function of the judge to create or vary contracts on behalf of the parties and states that the UAE legislature has restricted its application to cases of “unforeseen emergencies”.

The application of Article 249 of the UAE Civil Code is conditional upon the occurrence of an “exceptional emergency (or event) of a public nature” that could not have been foreseen at the time the contract was formed, and which renders performance of the obligation in question burdensome or onerous, but not impossible.  An event of a “public” nature means that it affects the entire industry or economy rather than a particular venture or project. Al Sanhouri offers useful examples of what may constitute “exceptional emergencies” such as earthquakes, wars or an epidemic, and floods are specifically included on this list.

In UAE law, “exceptional emergencies of a public nature” for the purposes of Article 249 are to be contrasted with “force majeure events” as stated in Article 273 of the UAE Civil Code.  Whereas force majeure events render the performance of an obligation impossible and result in the termination of the obligation, “unforeseen emergencies of a public nature” render the performance of contractual obligations “onerous and excessive … without reaching the level of impossibility” and “result only in the reduction of the obligation to a reasonable level and the consequences are thus borne by the obligee and the obligor”.

Article 249 is a mandatory provision which UAE law precludes contracting out of.  Parties to contracts governed by UAE law will therefore need to consider, honestly and realistically, the impact of the April Storms on the performance of their own and each other’s obligations to determine whether (and, if so, to what extent) Articles 249 and 273 might apply.

Obligors tempted to argue that Article 249 applies and that the performance of an obligation that has become more onerous should consequently be reduced by the court to a more reasonable level will need to remember that an increased burden of itself is insufficient: performance must carry with it the threat of “grave loss” before the principle bites.

Similarly, it would obviously be tempting for an obligee, seeking to resist an application under Article 249, to attempt to argue that the relevant event was foreseen (or was at least of a type that could or ought to have been foreseen) and that therefore the judicial discretion is simply not engaged.  To contend, for example, that even if this particular storm was not foreseen at the time the contract was formed the contract already speaks to what happens in the event of extreme adverse weather in general and therefore the parties can be taken to have envisaged these sorts of circumstances.

However, these arguments would not only be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Code itself but are also at odds with the relevant principle of Islamic Shariah law (Udur) from which Article 249 is derived.

Article 249 is engaged when, despite the circumstances, the terms of the contract prima facie continue to require performance by the obligor but this would cause him grave loss.  Even if a contract contains terms specifying how the risk of extreme weather events is to be borne, Article 249 enables the Court to step in and “reduce the oppressive obligation to a reasonable level if justice so requires”, and any agreement to the contrary shall be void.

The dispute resolution team at Afridi & Angell practices in English and Arabic, and is well-equipped to advise on bringing and defending Article 249 applications across the full range of commercial sectors in litigations and arbitrations both onshore and offshore. ■