The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) consolidated its position as a leading arbitration forum through 2025, with a series of court decisions and a new procedural statute that clarified how the DIFC Courts determine the seat of arbitration, apply the public policy defence, and recognise and enforce arbitral awards.
Determining the seat from an ambiguous clause
In Neville v Nigel [ARB 006/2024], the DIFC Court of First Instance granted a freezing injunction and disclosure order in support of an arbitration agreement that referred disputes to "Dubai arbitration" without naming a seat or an arbitral institution. The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction, contending the clause pointed to an onshore Dubai seat. On 22 May 2024, H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi upheld the injunction. Although the Court accepted that "Dubai arbitration" likely denoted an ad hoc arbitration, it read the clause against its context, weighing the parties' express choice of English governing law and the international character of the transaction and the parties. On the balance of probabilities, the Court concluded that the parties intended the DIFC as the seat, grounding its jurisdiction to grant interim measures under the DIFC Arbitration Law. On 31 July 2024 the judge granted permission to appeal on the narrow question of construing "Dubai arbitration" as a choice of DIFC seat.
A narrow public policy defence
On 9 January 2025, the DIFC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Nael v Niamh Bank. The appellant bank sought to resist recognition of an arbitral award, arguing that enforcement would conflict with parallel orders of the onshore Dubai Bankruptcy Court and thereby offend UAE public policy. While the Court accepted that avoiding conflicting judgments is a public policy of the UAE and that Article 44(1)(b)(ii) of the DIFC Arbitration Law permits refusal on public policy grounds, it stressed that the defence is an exceptional, narrowly construed remedy available only where enforcement would violate the forum's most basic notions of morality and justice. The bank failed to establish a true conflict, and the Court held that any such conflict was outweighed by the more fundamental policies of honouring unconditional on-demand engagements and supporting a pro-enforcement regime for arbitral awards.
Deference to tribunal case management
On 9 May 2025, the DIFC Court of First Instance in Naidoo v Nofret (ARB 011/2025) dismissed an urgent application to halt evidentiary hearings and set aside a tribunal's procedural orders. The Court held that procedural rulings are case management decisions within the tribunal's discretion under Article 23 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and do not amount to "awards" reviewable under Article 41. Reaffirming its approach of "maximum support, minimum interference," the Court confirmed it would intervene only where a serious procedural irregularity causes demonstrable prejudice.
Enforcing awards that incorporate peremptory orders
On 15 May 2025, in Nalani v Netty [2024] DIFC ARB 027, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to recognise and enforce a London-seated LCIA partial award that granted relief by reference to an earlier peremptory order. Rejecting the argument that the decision was not a true award under Article 42, the Court held that a tribunal decision qualifies as an award where it finally resolves the substantive issues, and that incorporation by reference sufficed to render the relief binding.
New DIFC Courts Law
On 10 March 2025, Dubai issued Law No. (2) of 2025 (the DIFC Courts Law), replacing the 2004 Judicial Authority and Courts Laws. Article 14(5) creates a dedicated gateway giving the DIFC Courts exclusive jurisdiction over the ratification or recognition of arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law, while Article 14(A)(6) confers exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from DIFC-seated arbitrations. The law also establishes a Mediation Centre, allows the appointment of independent Court Assessors, authorises remote hearings, and broadens the Court's powers to grant interim relief, including in support of foreign proceedings.