Asymmetric jurisdiction agreements; DIFC Courts give guidance

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses (or unilateral option clauses as they are also sometimes described) confer on one contracting party the option to bring proceedings in a court or forum of its choosing, while restricting the counterparty’s ability to bring claims to a single jurisdiction. Such clauses could provide, for example, that the party who enjoys the benefit of the provision may unilaterally opt for either arbitration or court litigation to bring a claim, or that its claims may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction of its choice.


Asymmetrical clauses are commonly found in financing transactions (primarily for the benefit of lenders) and give lenders the discretion to initiate action in whichever jurisdiction best serves their interests. However, such clauses have to be carefully drafted and can be subject to challenge (particularly those that include asymmetrical options to arbitrate). Such clauses have in the past been held to be unenforceable in certain jurisdictions (e.g., France, Russia), usually on the grounds that they violate public policy.




The DIFC Courts, in Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank Psc [2022] DIFC CA 007 dealt with the question of whether Ms. Khoury could bring a claim against the Bank before the DIFC Court where the right to do so under their agreement was conferred only on the Bank. The relevant provision reads as follows:


“This Agreement shall be governed by, and be construed in accordance with, the laws of the Dubai International Financial Centre (‘DIFC’). The [Claimant] agrees, for the benefit of the Bank, that any legal action or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement against it or any of its assets may be brought in the relevant courts of the DIFC”.


“The [Claimant] irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the jurisdiction of the relevant courts of the DIFC. The submission to such Jurisdiction shall not (and shall not be construed so as to) limit the right of the Bank to take proceedings against the [Claimant] in the courts of any other competent jurisdiction…”.


It was Ms. Khoury’s contention that, in the absence of a provision dealing with claims that the customer may have against the bank, the forgoing clause should be interpreted such that she was entitled to bring proceedings against the Bank in the DIFC Courts. The Bank argued that the clause gave only the Bank the unilateral right to bring claims against Ms. Khoury in the DIFC Courts, and that the same right was not reciprocally available to Ms. Khoury.


The DIFC Court of First Instance ruled that Ms. Khoury had agreed that claims could be brought against her in the DIFC Courts, but that the Bank had made no such reciprocal agreement. As a result, Ms. Khoury would only be able to sue the Bank in the Courts of Dubai, where the Bank was registered and incorporated. Ms. Khoury appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal.


The Appeal


The DIFC Court of Appeal, while noting that the asymmetry of the clause “makes for a degree of disquiet, serving to reflect the imbalance between the comparative market power of banks as contrasted with their customers”, went on to dismiss Ms. Khoury’s appeal. The Court rejected Ms. Khoury’s argument that the clause was an ‘opt-in’ clause that conferred jurisdiction on the DIFC Courts by virtue of Article 5(A)2[1] of the Judicial Authority Law because the agreement lacked a clear and specific provision by which Ms. Khoury could bring her claim before the DIFC Courts, holding that the clause was only for the benefit of the Bank.


The Court of Appeal specifically commented that asymmetrical clauses “are familiar as a matter of international banking practice and, in part at least, serve a legitimate commercial purpose” while citing with approval the English Court decision in AG v Pauline Shipping Ltd [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm), which noted that “[a]symmetric jurisdiction agreements are a long-established and practical feature of international financial documentation…”




Even though the Bank ultimately succeeded, the extensive debate in the Khoury case demonstrates that asymmetrical dispute resolution clauses can lend themselves to challenge and must be carefully drafted. It is to be noted that the Khoury case turned on the interpretation of the clause, rather than the enforceability of a unilateral option clause as a matter of principle. Ms. Khoury does not appear to have argued that an asymmetrical clause was repugnant per se. Nevertheless, it is clear that this case represents an affirmative acceptance of asymmetric dispute resolution contracts and the validity of such clauses by the Courts of the DIFC. The Courts of the ADGM had also previously adopted the common law approach and affirmed such clauses.[2]


It should be noted that, while the two common law courts in the UAE appear to have affirmatively accepted the enforceability of asymmetrical dispute resolution clauses, the position as to their enforceability in the UAE federal courts (or courts of Dubai outside of the DIFC) is far from certain. The civil law courts in the UAE will likely not be as open to enforcing such provisions, and could invoke principles of public policy, requirements of good faith and balance of rights such that a party seeking enforcement would have a higher threshold to meet. The enforcement of unilateral option clauses that confer on one party the exclusive right to opt for arbitration could be particularly problematic, given that the UAE Courts have consistently held that arbitration is an exceptional form of dispute resolution and that, in order to divest the Court from its ordinary jurisdiction, there must exist a clear and unambiguous agreement evidencing the joint intention of the contracting parties to resolve their disputes by arbitration. Whether a unilateral option clause would satisfy such requirement remains to be seen. ■





[1]Article 5(A)2 “The Court of First Instance may hear and determine any civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with it whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”


[2] A3 v B3 [2019] ADGM CFI 0004


Dubai Court of Appeal shuts down ‘guerilla tactics’ aimed at bypassing arbitration agreements

There are a number of reasons why parties who have agreed to arbitrate disputes (ordinarily by way of an arbitration clause in a contract) may later wish to litigate their dispute in the UAE courts. A common reason is the cost of arbitration, which can be quite significant compared to the cost of litigating in the UAE Courts. Further reasons may be that the party wishes to take advantage of the relative unpredictability of outcomes in the UAE Courts, which do not follow a system of binding precedent as understood in common law jurisdictions and, perhaps more importantly, do not award legal costs except in a token amount, thereby minimizing the cost of a failed claim.


Irrespective of the reason, a popular strategy deployed by parties wishing to bypass an arbitration agreement and invoke the jurisdiction of the UAE Courts (ordinarily a claimant) is to add parties who are not party to the arbitration agreement, as in cases which involve multiple defendants, a UAE court which has jurisdiction over one defendant has jurisdiction over all the defendants.


In a recent judgment issued by the Dubai Court of Appeal, this strategy was comprehensively rejected. The case in question involved a contract for the construction of a pavilion at Expo 2020, which contained an arbitration clause. The contractor asserted several claims against the employer and, in an attempt to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Dubai Court, impleaded the employer’s manager as a co-defendant.


The Dubai Court of Appeal saw through this stratagem, and held that the courts have no jurisdiction over the dispute because the proper parties to the contract have agreed to resolve disputes arising out of the contract by arbitration. In its judgment, the Dubai Court of Appeal laid down several clear principles:


– while a claimant may add multiple defendants, and while a court which has jurisdiction over one defendant will have jurisdiction over all the defendants, there must be ‘real claims’ against each of the defendants;


– what constitutes ‘real claims’ is a matter to be determined by the trial court based on the evidence and any applicable presumptions of law [in this case, the court found that the claimant’s cause of action was clearly a contractual one, and there were no ‘real claims’ against individuals who were not party to the contract; and


– adding parties solely for the purpose of invoking the court’s jurisdiction is not permitted.


Interestingly, while the multiplicity of defendants was the principal argument advanced by the claimant in this case in its attempt to bypass the arbitration agreement, this issue was not the basis of the judgment of the Court of First Instance which held that the courts have jurisdiction. The basis of the judgment of the Court of First Instance was that the amendment to the contract between the parties (necessitated by the delay to Expo 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic) did not expressly refer to the arbitration clause, and consequently that it did not meet the requirements of Article 7(2)(b) of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law, which provides that an arbitration agreement shall be deemed to be in writing if there is a reference in a written contract to any model contract, international agreement, or any other document containing an arbitration clause and the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract. This finding was set aside by the Dubai Court of Appeal, which held that there was no requirement to expressly refer to the arbitration clause as the amendment clearly formed part and parcel of the contract which contained the arbitration clause (i.e. as opposed to standard terms or a different contract containing an arbitration clause which is incorporated by reference). Nevertheless, following the judgment of the Court of First Instance, the prudent practice appears to be to make express reference to an arbitration clause in the main document in all subsequent contractual documents, even where the subsequent document is only an amendment to the contract. ■


LexisNexis UAE Managing Partner Report 2023

The 2023 UAE Managing Partner Report is here!


Brought to you by LexisNexis Middle East and supported by Abu Dhabi Global Market, this year’s report titled, ‘Where the Future is Still Bright’, is packed with positive growth and optimism in the UAE legal market.


Bashir Ahmed shares his insights on the growing compliance landscape in the UAE legal market. Read his interview by downloading the PDF.

Arbitration (UAE chapter), Lexology Getting The Deal Through

This Q&A provides a multi-jurisdictional in-depth understanding of Arbitration. This particular chapter explores the UAE process and challenges faced when considering Arbitration as a course of action. The chapter covers a broad spectrum of truths, a sample of topics covered are as follows; laws and institutions, arbitral proceedings, jurisdiction and competence of arbitral tribunal, interim measures and sanctioning powers and updates and trends.

Corporate Criminal Liability in the UAE and the Duty to Report Crime



Recent years have seen the UAE making regular updates to its laws in order to guarantee a legal regime that is forward-looking, and consistent with international standards and principles. The leaders of the UAE have been particularly cognizant of the need to have a robust criminal law regime to encourage legitimacy in business, and dissuade any unscrupulous activities that could reflect negatively on the UAE as a determined and fast-developing economy. This is especially true of Dubai, whose ruler, HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, recently unveiled plans to catapult Dubai into the top three cities by economic strength by 2033, and to place it within the top four global financial centres.


In such circumstances, it is particularly important for companies based in and operating out of the UAE to stay abreast of legislation which penalises criminal conduct of directors, employees and other representatives. Crimes that are more relevant for corporate entities would be fraud, bribery, forgery, and money laundering.


Brief overview of the criminal justice system 


All laws in the UAE are codified, and there is no system of stare decisis or binding precedent, as understood in a common law jurisdiction, that is followed. Consequently, each case is decided on its own merits, though previous decisions may serve as useful guide and have some persuasive effect on the courts.


The principle that no one shall be punished for any act which did not constitute a criminal offence under the law at the time when it was committed is safeguarded in Article 27 of the Federal Constitution which states that ‘[l]aw shall define crime and penalties. [n]o penalty shall be inflicted for any act performed or abandoned before the enactment of the law stipulating it.’


Additionally, although the UAE law has not expressly recognised traditional common law standards of proof such as the balance of probabilities test in civil claims, or the beyond reasonable doubt standard for criminal matters, the courts in their decisions have consistently reiterated that allegations in criminal cases must be proven to a degree that leaves no reasonable doubt.


In terms of the Criminal Procedure Code, the public prosecution has exclusive jurisdiction to lodge and pursue criminal cases, excluding cases otherwise specified by law.  Cases relating to any criminal offence will generally be filed and prosecuted by the public prosecution before the criminal courts of first instance (save for example, certain crimes involving national security which will be heard directly by the Union Supreme Court). In practice, when presented with complex crimes or crimes which heavily feature commercial aspects, the court will appoint an expert to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the court with findings and recommendations. More often than not, the courts adopt the view of the expert, unless there are serious errors which are evident on the face of the record.


Can companies in the UAE be held liable for criminal conduct of employees?


Juristic persons, including companies based in the UAE, can attract liability for offences committed by directors, employees and other agents. Federal Decree Law No. 32/2021 On Commercial Companies (the Companies Law) provides that companies shall be liable for damage caused due to unlawful acts committed by the company’s chairman and board members while managing the company. The Companies Law also provides for personal liability of board members and executive management of companies to the company, shareholders, and third parties, for acts of fraud and abuse of power.


Federal Decree Law No. 31/2021 on the Issuance of the Crimes and Penalties Law (the Penal Code) goes beyond the provisions of the Companies Law which appears to be limited to acts of the company chairman, board, and executive management. Article 66 of the Penal Code provides that juristic persons shall be criminally liable for crimes committed by their representatives, directors, or agents acting on their behalf or in their names. Although the law does not expressly mention “employees”, it is likely that a court in the UAE would interpret “representative” or “agent” to include an employee acting on behalf of the company. The provision clarified that juristic entities may only be sentences to a fine, confiscation and other penalties prescribed by law. Where the law provides for a principal penalty other than a fine, the penalty for juristic persons would be restricted to a fine not exceeding AED 5 million, unless otherwise provided by law.


Corporate criminal liability is also recognised under Federal Decree Law No. 20/2018 on Combating Money Laundering Crimes, the Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Unlawful Organisations (the Anti-Money Laundering Law), which states that the legal person can be criminally responsible for the crime if it is committed in its name or for its account intentionally.


While the position in some other jurisdictions is that only the criminal acts of a senior person representing the company’s controlling mind and will can incur liability on the company, the law of the UAE does not make such distinction. All that is required for a company to attract liability is for the individual concerned to have committed the criminal act in the company’s name or when acting on behalf of the company. As noted above, the courts are likely to interpret the provisions widely to include employees exercising some level of managerial powers and acting on behalf of the company. However, where an employee commits a criminal offence in the pursuance of some personal interest or agenda, the company will not be criminally liable.


Do companies have a duty to report crimes or suspicious transactions?


It is important to note that the Penal Code imposes a general duty on all persons who have knowledge of a crime to report it to the competent authorities, and failure to do so is a punishable offence. Where there is concern of potential money laundering, the Anti-Money Laundering Law imposes a specific duty on financial institutions and Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs) who suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect, that a transaction or funds constitute proceeds of crime, to report to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Central Bank “without delay” and provide it with a detailed report including all data and information on such transaction and the connected parties. The Anti-Money Laundering Regulations define DNFBPs to include independent legal professionals and independent accountants. Article 251 of the Companies Law imposes a separate obligation on auditors of Public Joint Stock Companies to notify the Securities and Commodities Authority within 10 days of detecting any crime. Article 104 (1) of the Companies Law provides that the provisions on Joint Stock Companies apply to Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) to the extent they are consistent with their nature. Therefore, auditors of LLCs may also be bound by the obligation to report crimes under Article 251.


Is it still money laundering if the proceeds were obtained overseas?


The provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Law apply where any person willfully does any of the acts mentioned under Article 2 (1) with proceeds or funds having knowledge that the proceeds or funds are the proceeds of a Predicate Offence. The law defines Predicate Offence as any act which constitutes a felony or misdemeanor under the UAE law, whether it is committed within the UAE or elsewhere, provided it is punishable in the State where it was committed as well as in the UAE.


When should a crime be reported?


The Penal Code is silent on the time-frame within which a crime must be reported. The Anti-Money Laundering Law only states that financial institutions and DNFBPs (which includes independent auditors) must report suspicious transactions to the FIU “without delay”, and does not specify any further.  On the other hand, the Companies Law requires company auditors to report any crime within 10 days of detecting the crime. Read with the Companies Law, it is likely that the duty imposed on independent auditors to report “without delay” under the Anti-Money Laundering Law means that the report must be made within 10 days or less.


It is also important to note that while the Penal Code and the Companies Law require crimes or violations of the law to be reported, the duty to report under the Anti-Money Laundering Law is much wider and requires the relevant persons to report upon suspicion. This is in keeping with the intention of the drafters of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, that is the strict deterrence of any money laundering activities in the UAE. ■

Litigation 2.0 – Significant changes in onshore litigation from January 2023

On 2 January 2023, three pieces of federal legislation came into effect which, if implemented as envisaged, will arguably make the most significant changes to litigation in the on-shore Dubai Courts since the UAE was established.


The three laws are:

  • Federal Decree Law 42/2022 on Civil Procedures (the CPC);
  • Federal Decree Law 35/2022 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions (the Evidence Law); and
  • Federal Decree Law 34/2022 on Regulating the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Professions (the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law).


While there is plenty in the laws to interest practitioners, what follows is an overview of some of the more significant changes introduced by each of the laws from the perspective of litigants.


Federal Decree Law 42/2022 on Civil Procedures (the CPC)


Perhaps the most significant change introduced by the CPC, and certainly the one that has captured the public attention, is the provision for the creation of courts that will function in the English language. Strictly speaking, these courts have not yet been created, and Article 5(2) of the CPC provides that the President of the Federal Judicial Council or the head of the local judicial authority to establish courts which will hear disputes regarding (as yet unspecified) specialised matters. The importance of this development is difficult to understate, as parties not conversant in Arabic have long been apprehensive of proceedings which they are unable to comprehend without the assistance of translation. It will also help bring down the cost of litigation by eliminating the need to translate all documentary evidence into Arabic. It is worth noting that Abu Dhabi has had dual language (English-Arabic) courts in operation for a few years now.


Article 29 of the CPC does away with the distinction between plenary and small claims cases before the courts of first instance (an administrative decision based on the value of the claim), and all matters in the first instance will now be heard by a single judge, whose decision will be final if the claim value is under AED 50,000. Previously, courts of first instance were comprised of three judges for plenary claims. In a jurisdiction where dissenting opinions are rare, the constitution of single judge courts to hear cases of first instance should hopefully free up judicial resources to create more circuits to hear disputes more efficiently.


Article 32 makes provision for the creation of a new circuit to hear inheritance cases and civil, commercial or real estate disputes arising out of inheritance matters. Decisions of the court will not be subject to appeal, but may be the subject of petitions for reconsideration. This amendment likely reflects the recent growth of the UAE population, and the UAE’s increasing popularity as a jurisdiction to reside in for the longer term.


Continuing the trend of the amendments made to the old civil procedures law (notably including the 2019 regulations), the CPC contains provisions aimed at making litigation a faster process. Some examples include:


(a) Where parties overseas are required to be summoned through diplomatic channels, Article 11(2) provides that the parties are deemed to be summoned once 21 working days have passed from the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs making the request for service to the diplomatic mission of the foreign country in the UAE. The previous practice was to wait for confirmation of summons being served in the foreign jurisdiction, which caused significant delays. It should be noted that service through diplomatic channels is now a last resort, where summons through other means (e.g. electronic communication) have failed.


(b) The powers of the supervising judge of the case management offices have been enhanced to include issuing orders to appoint experts, hear witnesses, refer disputes to conciliation, or rule that claims have been waived or abandoned. Previously, these orders could only be issued by the court, which led to delays.


Major changes have been made to the appeals process. Appeals to the Court of Appeal formerly entailed a complete re-hearing of the dispute as a matter of course, but this will no longer necessarily be the case.


Article 167 provides that the Court of Appeal shall, within 20 working days of the appeal being referred to it by the case management office, make a decision on whether to dismiss the appeal or call for further submissions. It possible, therefore, that an appeal could be determined with only a single round of submissions made to the Court of Appeal. Consequently, as a practical matter, parties will be required to present comprehensive arguments, together with supporting evidence, with its first submission. For more details, please see our inBrief of 9 January 2023.


Article 178 requires appeals to the Court of Cassation to be made within 30 days, as opposed to 60 days as previously provided for. If a Cassation appellant makes an application for a stay of execution, Article 177(3) requires that it must be decided on within 15 days by the Court of Cassation, whereas previously there was no time limit.


Time limits applicable to execution proceedings have also been truncated. A judgment debtor now only has seven days within which to satisfy a judgment debt or object to its execution before the court makes orders for attachment of assets etc. This period used to be 15 days.


Federal Decree Law 35/2022 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions (the Evidence Law)


The changes made by the Evidence Law are equally important, perhaps more so, as they more likely to have a direct bearing on the outcome of cases.


Perhaps the most significant change is the one made through Article 35 which provides that, in commercial disputes, a party may seek production of documents from its opponent, provided that the document must be identified clearly (or as a clear category of documents), the document must relate to the underlying commercial transaction, and the production should not infringe trade secrets or related rights. The court may draw an adverse inference in the event a party refuses to produce documents. The limitations regarding document disclosure and production were often cited as a weakness in the onshore court system, and the position now under Article 35 (which will be quite familiar to common lawyers) ought to go some distance in redressing this weakness.


Article 5 of the Evidence Law requires the courts to give evidence to any rules of evidence that the parties may have agreed to in writing, unless it is contrary to public order.


There appears to be an emphasis on oral evidence in the new Evidence Law. Article 78 in particular contains detailed provisions on the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. It is also encouraging to see specific provisions in Article 9 of the Evidence Law on how persons with speech impediments may give testimony.


Subject to the UAE’s treaty obligations and considerations of public order, Article 12 provides that a court may accept ‘evidentiary procedures’ implemented overseas, which could include, for example, affidavits or witness statements executed overseas. These provisions would be of particular interest to parties who wish to tender evidence from overseas (e.g. from parent companies headquartered overseas, or where the dispute relates to an international transaction, both which are quite common in the UAE).


Federal Decree Law 34/2022 on Regulating the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Professions (the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law)


Given the introduction of a framework for English language courts, it is not particularly surprising that the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law makes provision for foreign lawyers to appear in the onshore courts. Article 10 provides that foreign lawyers who, among others, have a minimum of 15 years’ experience, have a valid registration in the country in which s/he is qualified as an advocate, and is a partner in a firm which has branches in at least three different countries with at least 25 partners in total and two partners in the UAE, may appear in the onshore courts. However, these rights of audience are limited to ‘specialised circuits’ (almost certainly the English language circuits provided for in the CPC) and do not extend to criminal or family matters. Previously, rights of audience in the onshore courts were limited to UAE nationals and certain Arab nationals.




The implementation of these legislative changes will be scrutinised with interest and, in addition to making the process of litigation more efficient, it is hoped that that the changes will also lead to better outcomes. The new Evidence Law is likely to be quite important in this respect, and it will be particularly interesting to see how the provisions on witness examination and document production will be treated by civil law judges. Going forward, the creation of specialist commercial and technical courts will be an important, if not essential, reform to facilitate better outcomes, and it is encouraging to see the concept of specialist courts being recognised under the CPC with the creation of courts that will have jurisdiction over inheritance-related disputes. ■

Are appeals to the court of appeal a matter of right under the new Civil Procedure Law?

The UAE has introduced a new law on civil procedure (Federal Decree-Law 42/2022) which repeals Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 on civil procedure and its executive regulations issued under Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018. The new law came into force on 2 January 2022.


As a firm that has an extensive practice before on-shore UAE Courts, the routine advice given to a client on the UAE Court system is that an appeal to the court of appeal is generally available as a matter of right (provided the monetary threshold of the claims are met), and that there is no concept of ‘leave to appeal’, as can be seen in other jurisdictions.


While it appears that this position remains, the new law provides for an added level of scrutiny of the appeal, where the court of appeal is required to deliberate on the appeal in chambers (Article 167 of the new law). This deliberation occurs after the appeal is referred to the judge by the Case Management Office. Generally, the Case Management Office is required to ensure that summons is served on the appellee, and that the appellee is given an opportunity to respond to the appeal.


The new law imposes a 20-working day time-line for such deliberation, and the court may either decide on the appeal, or schedule a hearing for the examination of the merits. If the court decides that the appeal is inadmissible or that the judgment appealed is to be affirmed, the court is required to render a reasoned judgment.


Parties therefore will need to ensure that its submissions filed before the Case Management Office are comprehensive, as there is a possibility that the appeal will be decided based only on the submissions filed before the Case Management Office.


Apart from this additional level of scrutiny, Article 167 of the new law clarifies the following:


  • relief that has not been sought before the court of first instance cannot be included in the court of appeal – Article 167(5);


  • addition of parties to a dispute, including applications to intervene are not permitted in the court of appeal – Article 167 (6); and


  • an appeal to the court of appeal necessarily entails a re-trial, where all decisions and judgments rendered in the court of appeal will be reviewed. ■

Rules of evidence (including cross-border) in civil proceedings Q&A: (DIFC)

This Q&A provides an overview of the rules of evidence in civil proceedings, including rules on the disclosure obligations of the parties, admissibility of evidence, witness evidence, the standard of proof, as well as issues that arise in gathering cross-border evidence.

Litigation and Enforcement in the United Arab Emirates

A Q&A guide to dispute resolution law in the United Arab Emirates.


The country-specific Q&A gives a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning dispute resolution in this jurisdiction, including court procedures; fees and funding; interim remedies (including attachment orders); disclosure; expert evidence; appeals; class actions; enforcement; cross-border issues; the use of ADR; and any reform proposals.

Arbitration procedures and practice in the United Arab Emirates

A Q&A guide to arbitration law and practice in the United Arab Emirates.


The country-specific Q&A guide provides a structured overview of the key practical issues concerning arbitration in this jurisdiction, including any mandatory provisions and default rules applicable under local law,confidentiality, local courts’ willingness to assist arbitration, enforcement of awards and the available remedies, both final and interim.