Enforcing arbitration awards in the UAE

*This Practice Note was originally published on Practical Law and is reproduced with the permission of Thomson Reuters.

This Practice note sets out the legal framework for enforcing arbitral awards in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the grounds for refusing enforcement and the courts’ approach to enforcement. It details changes to enforcement of foreign and domestic awards against assets located in on‑shore UAE following the introduction of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law 2018 and the scope of the so‑called "conduit jurisdiction" of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) in light of the establishment of the new Judicial Authority for Resolving Jurisdictional Conflicts in Dubai.

 

Scope of this note

Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has experienced tremendous growth over many years, with both domestic and international users increasingly drawn to many of its advantages over conventional court litigation in the Emirates, and regionally. A large proportion of these arbitrations have had an international element.

A crucial factor in any jurisdiction’s development as a credible centre for arbitration is the existence of a functioning and efficient enforcement regime for both domestic and foreign arbitral awards. One important reason for the growing popularity of arbitration in the UAE is that the historical issues with enforcement have progressively begun to recede.

This Practice note sets out the legal framework for the enforcement of arbitral awards in the UAE, the grounds on which enforcement may be refused and the courts’ approach to enforcement. It summarises the rules and procedure for the enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards in the UAE, and gives practical guidance on the enforcement process. This includes considering the differences between the "on‑shore" and "off‑shore" systems in the UAE. In addition, the note discusses the facts and implications of some of the most important cases on the issue.

This note does not address issues relating to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the ICSID Convention. For guidance on that, see Practice note, Enforcing ICSID Convention arbitration awards in the UAE: overview.

 

Preliminary enforcement questions: "on‑shore" and "off‑shore" enforcement

It is important to understand that the UAE has a well‑established, civil law "on‑shore" court system, as well as two common law "off‑shore" court systems based in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM). In May 2018, the UAE issued Federal Law No 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (Arbitration Law), which came into force on 16 June 2018 and applies to the enforcement of arbitral awards on‑shore. The DIFC and ADGM are both financial free zones in the UAE, with their own civil and commercial laws (including arbitration laws based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which are different from the Arbitration Law applicable in on‑shore Dubai). Both the on‑shore and off‑shore jurisdictions have arbitral institutions located within them.

In relation to Dubai specifically, in April 2024, Dubai Decree No 29 of 2024 established the new Judicial Authority for Resolving Jurisdictional Conflicts between the DIFC Courts and Judicial Bodies in the Emirate of Dubai (New Judicial Authority). The definition of "Judicial Bodies" in Article 1 of Dubai Decree No 29 of 2024 includes the Dubai courts, the Dubai Rental Disputes Resolution Centre, and other judicial bodies that are deemed as judicial authorities according to the legislation establishing them or regulating their functions in Dubai.

The New Judicial Authority has replaced the Joint Judicial Committee of the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts (Joint Judicial Committee), which existed previously and was established to resolve potential or actual conflicts of jurisdiction between, or judgments of, the on‑shore and off‑shore Dubai courts. While the New Judicial Authority has a broader remit than the Joint Judicial Committee, its constitution of members is broadly similar. The New Judicial Authority and some of the Joint Judicial Committee’s past decisions are discussed below (see Joint Judicial Committee and New Judicial Authority).

On‑shore arbitral institutions

The main arbitral institutions that exist on‑shore in the UAE are:

• Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). DIAC was established in 1994 by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce, as a centre for commercial conciliation and arbitration. Its structure and rules were significantly modified in 2007. In September 2021, through Decree No 34 (which abolished two off‑shore arbitral institutions (see Off‑shore arbitral institutions)), DIAC was effectively re‑established as a consolidated institution operating in both on‑shore Dubai and the DIFC. Therefore, arbitration users in Dubai (and more widely) eagerly anticipated a new and improved set of rules, which DIAC launched in 2022 and which came into force on 21 March 2022. The DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 (DIAC Rules 2022) have been adapted to reflect the latest developments in the international arbitration field and the needs of the business community. They contain new provisions on consolidation, joinder, expedited arbitration and an alternative process for appointing arbitrators. They also include provisions on exceptional proceedings, such as emergency arbitration and conciliation (see Legal update). For discussion of the impact of Decree No 34 on DIAC, see Article, Dubai International Arbitration Centre: two years of transformation under review.
• Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD). arbitrateAD, established by the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce & Industry in December 2023, replaced the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) from 1 February 2024. The publication of the arbitrateAD rules on 1 February 2024 was a welcome development to the arbitration landscape in Abu Dhabi (see Legal update). With the ADCCAC Rules having last been updated in 2013, the introduction of several new provisions in the arbitrateAD rules that reflect modern practice in international arbitration has positioned arbitrateAD alongside the key arbitral institutions in the region. For further guidance on arbitrateAD arbitrations, see Practice note.

Off‑shore arbitral institutions

DIAC is now Dubai’s only major arbitral institution, supervising both on‑shore and off‑shore Dubai‑seated arbitrations.

The two arbitral institutions that were previously established off‑shore, the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC) and the DIFC‑LCIA Arbitration Centre (DIFC‑LCIA), were abolished by Decree No 34 of 2021 (Decree No 34) (see Legal update). In March 2022, DIAC and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) agreed that the LCIA would administer all existing DIFC‑LCIA cases commenced and registered by the DIFC‑LCIA under a designated case number on or before 20 March 2022. Cases commenced on or after 21 March 2022 were to be registered and administered by DIAC (see Legal update).

Issues are likely to arise in relation to the enforceability of previously agreed DIFC‑LCIA arbitration clauses, despite the transitional arrangements provided for in Decree No 34. For example, in Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co Ltd v Dynamic Industries, Inc et al (Louisiana Eastern District Court) (2:23‑cv‑01396‑GGG‑KWR), a US court declined to dismiss court proceedings said to have been brought in breach of an arbitration agreement providing for DIFC‑LCIA arbitration, which it found to be unenforceable. The court rejected an argument that, because Decree No 34 "transferred the assets, rights and obligations" of the DIFC‑LCIA to the DIAC, and expressly stated that DIFC‑LCIA arbitration agreements made prior to Decree No 34 remained valid, the court could compel arbitration by DIAC arbitration. The court disagreed, finding that an enforceable arbitration agreement was based on the consent of the parties and could not be rewritten either by the court or by means of Decree No 34.

However, in April 2024 the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal clarified the UAE law position, holding that parties can rely on Decree No 34 to arbitrate claims notwithstanding the abolition of the DIFC‑LCIA, confirming that "dissolution or cancellation of an arbitration centre did not constitute a case of impossibility or inability to enforce the arbitration clause" (ADCA 449/2024 (29 April 2024)). The Court of Appeal found that rules of arbitral institutions are not inherently permanent or fixed, meaning that their amendment did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable or impossible to apply.

In addition, in June 2024 the DIFC courts also expressly recognised Decree No 34 as part of DIFC law (Narcisco v Nash (DIFC Court of First Instance) (ARB 009/2024)). Justice Michael Black KC found that the effect of Decree No 34 (which formed part of DIFC law) is that DIFC‑LCIA arbitrations which were commenced after 20 September 2021 are now to be conducted under the DIAC Rules. Further Justice Black KC noted that article 4(a)(2) of the DIAC Statute (which forms part of Decree No 34) provides that, where the seat of arbitration is the DIFC, the arbitration agreement will be governed by DIFC law, meaning Decree No 34 applies and the arbitration must proceed as a DIAC arbitration. This judgment should provide welcome clarity and certainty to parties seeking to commence DIFC‑seated DIAC arbitrations pursuant to existing DIFC‑LCIA arbitration agreements.

For further discussion of this issue, see Article.

The ADGM Arbitration Centre opened its doors on 17 October 2018. This is a venue where arbitrations can take place, rather than an arbitral institution, which administers disputes. It has issued the ADGM Arbitration Centre Arbitration Guidelines, which are intended to assist users of arbitration in adopting "innovative best practice" to ensure that their arbitrations are run efficiently (see Legal update).

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has also opened a case management office for the ICC Court Secretariat in the ADGM. The opening of a case management office is intended to strengthen the ADGM’s reputation as a leading dispute resolution forum and the ICC Court’s position as a preferred institution in the region.

On 11 February 2018, the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department of the Abu Dhabi Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the ADGM courts for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, decisions and orders, as well as arbitral awards rendered in on‑shore and off‑shore Abu Dhabi (see Legal update). In 2020, the ADGM Founding Law was amended and the existing framework for reciprocal enforcement was codified into law (see Legal update).

In May 2019, the ADGM also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Ras Al Khaimah Courts Department for the mutual recognition of judgments, orders, court‑certified settlement agreements and ratified awards, issued by the ADGM and Ras Al Khaimah courts. In July 2019, the ADGM courts rendered two of their first arbitration‑related rulings, one dealing with the enforceability of an ADGM arbitration agreement (A3 v B3 [2019] ADGMCFI 0004 (4 July 2019)), the other one dealing with the enforcement of a foreign LCIA award under the New York Convention (A4 v B4 [2019] ADGMCFI 0007 (8 October 2019)). In November 2019, the ADGM courts and the UAE Ministry of Justice signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, decisions, orders, and ratified arbitral awards, issued by the ADGM and the federal courts of the Emirates of Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain and Fujairah.

Legal framework for enforcement of arbitral awards in the UAE

Whether (and by what means) a foreign or domestic arbitral award may be enforced will require an analysis of the legal framework of the on‑shore and off‑shore systems, together with a discussion of any reciprocal agreements or treaties that are in place.

 

Enforcement of domestic arbitral awards in the UAE courts

Enforcement of domestic arbitral awards in the UAE courts is governed by the Arbitration Law, specifically articles 52‑57. The Arbitration Law is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law but with some notable departures (see Legal update). For example, a party may seek to set aside an award rendered by a UAE‑seated tribunal on one or more of eight procedural grounds identified in article 53 of the Arbitration Law. This compares to six procedural set‑aside grounds in the UNCITRAL Model Law and five procedural grounds for resisting enforcement under in the New York Convention.

Article 48 of the Arbitration Law provides that arbitral awards are confidential and cannot be disclosed or published (in whole or in part) except with the written consent of the parties. That said, disclosure of an arbitral award to the UAE courts (without the written consent of both parties) is permitted by implication, as the original award or a duly certified copy must be submitted as part of the process of ratification set out in article 55 of the Arbitration Law (see Procedure for enforcing domestic awards below). Furthermore, publication of judicial judgments relating to arbitral awards is expressly permitted by Article 48 of the Arbitration Law.

Article 52 of the Arbitration Law states that an arbitral award made in accordance with the Arbitration Law has the same binding force on the parties as a court ruling. However, before a domestic award can be enforced in the UAE, the award must be ratified by the UAE courts.

Procedure for enforcing domestic awards

Article 55 of the Arbitration Law sets out the procedure for recognition of domestic arbitral awards. A person seeking to enforce an arbitral award must submit a request for ratification of the award and an enforcement order. This should be submitted to the President of the local or federal Appeal Court and each of the following documents must be included with the application:

• Original arbitral award or a duly certified copy.
• A copy of the arbitration agreement.
• A certified Arabic translation of the arbitral award from an accredited body (if the award is made in another language).
• A copy of the minutes of the deposit of the award in the court.

The enforcement order should be issued by the Court of Appeal within 60 days of the filing date of the request, provided that none of the grounds for nullification listed in article 54 of the Arbitration Law are applicable. The request for ratification of the award and the enforcement order can be made without notice to the award debtor.

Either party is entitled to object to the decision of the Court of Appeal. Such objections should be made to the same chamber of the Court of Appeal on legal grounds within 30 days of the date of judgment. Any decision by the Court of Appeal regarding an objection can be further appealed to the Court of Cassation within 60 days of its issuance.

The above process will typically take two to four years if the decision of the Court of Appeal is appealed to the Court of Cassation and all parties are notified properly of the enforcement proceedings. If notice has not been provided correctly to either party, the process may take longer.

Once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the party enforcing the award can complete the enforcement process by placing the final court’s order before the execution court. This process will usually take five to eight months but can take longer in circumstances where a party has not been properly notified of the execution proceedings.

Interim measures in support of enforcement

Pursuant to article 211 of Federal Decree‑Law No 42 of 2022 on Promulgation of the Civil Procedure Law (New Civil Procedure Law), which came into force on 2 January 2023, if circumstances arise which result in resistance to or interruption of the enforcement of an award, the award creditor may apply immediately to the court for any order of interim measures, which the judge deems appropriate. Interim measures include precautionary attachments and the seizure of property or assets in accordance with articles 246 and 247 of the New Civil Procedure Law. A precautionary attachment prevents the relevant assets from being disposed of prior to the conclusion of enforcement. Most commonly, such an order will be made in relation to funds held in the award debtor’s bank account, to ensure these remain available to satisfy the sums due in the award.

Grounds for refusing enforcement of domestic awards

Historically, there were difficulties with the enforcement of domestic awards under the UAE Civil Procedures Code (CPC), the Federal Law 11 of 1992 (which has since been repealed by the Arbitration Law). In September 2012, for example, there were two cases where the UAE courts refused to enforce an award on the following grounds:

• That the requirements of the CPC were not adhered to (in this case, that the majority award of a three‑member tribunal did not refer to a dissenting opinion (Article 212).
• Public policy grounds (Baiti Real Estate Development v Dynasty Zarooni Inc. (Appeal No. 14/2012, Real Estate Cassation).

Such outlier decisions are becoming the exception, and it is hoped that, under the Arbitration Law, such decisions will become rarer still.

However, there remain eight grounds on which a judgment debtor may apply to the court challenging the execution proceedings (article 53, Arbitration Law) within 30 days from receipt of notification of the award (article 54(2), Arbitration Law).

In this event, the court may suspend proceedings for up to 60 days to give the tribunal an opportunity to eliminate grounds for setting aside the award where appropriate (article 54(6), Arbitration Law). Any remaining grounds may be referred to the Court of Appeal, which will review the submissions and evidence of the parties (typically at several hearings) before deciding whether to ratify or annul the arbitral award. In making this decision, the court should not consider the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s findings and should only annul an award if one of the procedural grounds contained in article 53 of the Arbitration Law is applicable.

The eight grounds on which a UAE court may refuse to enforce a domestic arbitral award under the Arbitration Law are where:

• The arbitration agreement, on which the award was issued, does not exist or has lapsed under the law that governs the agreement or, where the parties have not agreed to the law governing the arbitration agreement, under this law (article 53(1)(a)).
• The law governing the party’s capacity, the party agreeing to arbitration was, at the time of execution of the arbitration agreement, incompetent or under some incapacity (article 53(1)(b)).
• The person signing the arbitration agreement did not have the necessary authority to act or "dispose of the disputed right", as required under article 4 of the Arbitration Law (article 53(1)(c)).
• A party was unable to present its case because:
• either it was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings;
• the tribunal breached due process; or
• of any other reason beyond a party’s control.
• (Article 53(1)(d).)
• The tribunal failed to apply the parties’ choice of substantive law (article 53(1)(e)).
• The constitution of the tribunal or the appointment of arbitrator(s) was not in accordance with the Arbitration Law or the parties’ agreement (article 53(1)(f)).
• The tribunal failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Arbitration Law or the arbitral award was not issued within the specified time frame (article 53(1)(g)).
• The award deals with matters not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submissions to the tribunal, which cannot be separated from those matters within the terms of the arbitration agreement or submitted to the tribunal (article 53(1)(h)).

The inclusion of the general provision that awards may be set aside if they contravene public order or morals of the UAE is understandable, not least because it is a ground in most, if not all, international arbitration laws. However, since it is this ground that has been used in the past as a "catch‑all" provision of the CPC to justify the inclusion of numerous grounds for challenge, the fear is that it will remain possible to bring such challenges under the new Arbitration Law.

Furthermore, while article 54 of the Arbitration Law confirms that a judgment refusing to annul an award can only be challenged in the Court of Cassation, article 57 specifically permits an award debtor, having failed to persuade the Court of Cassation to annul an award and now facing an order for execution of the award, to file a "grievance" against the order. Such "grievances" can be appealed to the Court of Appeal, which means that there will continue to be delays in the execution of a confirmed award.

Prior to the Arbitration Law, defendants sometimes succeeded in having apparently valid awards set aside under the CPC on the basis of what appear to be spurious procedural arguments. It is to be hoped that the Arbitration Law, and improvement to regional institutional rules, will make such decisions a thing of the past. For example, under the DIAC Rules 2022, there will no longer be a requirement for arbitrators to be physically present in Dubai when signing the award, which was historically an issue. A further example is that article 41 of the Arbitration Law enables tribunals to sign awards outside the seat of arbitration, and to manage the signing in whatever manner they desire (including by electronic means). These improvements may reduce, or eradicate, the occurrence of such issues.

However, the ability of the losing party to appeal a judgment to the Court of Cassation means that, even where an award debtor’s attempts to have an award set aside are unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal, it can take months or even years for an award to be enforced. Legal costs incurred during the course of these proceedings are not generally recoverable.

Public policy

One specific issue is that the on‑shore UAE courts take the view that certain matters of "public order" or "public policy" are not arbitrable, and they have set aside awards, or held arbitration clauses invalid, where these are seen to violate public policy.

"Public order" is defined in article 3 of the UAE Civil Transactions Code as:

• "Public order shall be deemed to include matters relating to personal status such as marriage, inheritance and lineage, and matters relating to systems of government, freedom of trade, the circulation of wealth, rules of individual ownership and other rules and foundations upon which society is based."

The way in which this broad definition will be applied to arbitration remains unclear. However, in 2012, the Dubai Court of Cassation set aside three DIAC awards relating to the purchase of off‑plan properties in Dubai. In its awards, the tribunal applied article 3 of Law No 13 of 2008 (Property Law) and concluded that the sale and purchase agreements were void, as article 3 required that any disposition that transfers or restricts title would be void if not recorded on the Interim Real Estate Register of the Dubai Department of Lands and Properties (which is used to record all sales of off‑plan real estate units). The court held that the application of article 3 was a matter of public order and, therefore, not arbitrable. This decision has been followed in subsequent annulment proceedings, including where tribunals have reached the same decision by reference to different principles, but have taken article 3 into account.

There is now an increasing trend for respondents to commence on‑shore Dubai court proceedings, alleging breach of public order, in order to disrupt or undermine arbitral proceedings, or to complicate enforcement. One other area where UAE public policy may be offended is the field of unilateral, or asymmetric, arbitration clauses, that is, clauses which require one party to arbitrate but permit the other party to litigate (or vice versa) (for further discussion of these clauses, see Practice note). While the validity of such clauses in on‑shore Dubai is untested, there is a real risk that the on‑shore Dubai courts will regard these clauses as breaching public policy, namely the right of equal access to justice.

As a result, it is advisable to avoid such clauses where the seat of arbitration is in, or enforcement may be sought in, on‑shore Dubai.

The Arbitration Law is relatively untested and, in a developing jurisdiction such as the UAE, there remains the potential for outlier judgments. For example, on 30 March 2016, the Dubai Court of Appeal (apparently of its own motion) refused to enforce an ICC award rendered in London because it was not satisfied that the UK was a signatory to the New York Convention (Case 52/2016).

The Dubai Court of Cassation has now overturned this judgment. In doing so, it reiterated Dubai’s commitment to upholding the rights of award creditors and member states under the New York Convention. However, while the right result was eventually achieved in that case, the decision of the Court of Appeal serves as a reminder that surprising decisions at the enforcement stage (particularly in the lower courts) continue to occur. For further details see Legal update.

In a surprising ruling, the Dubai Court of Cassation partially annulled an ICC award on the basis that it included an award that one party should pay the other party’s legal costs. It was held that, as the Arbitration Law is silent on the power of tribunals to award legal costs and the parties had not expressly included this power in their arbitration agreement, the tribunal did not have the power to do so (for discussion of this case, and its implications, see Article). Article 46 of the Arbitration Law only refers to a tribunal’s power to award arbitration costs such as the costs and expenses of the tribunal, or tribunal‑appointed experts. To protect against the risk of such enforcement decisions, parties may wish to expressly grant a UAE‑seated tribunal authority to award the legal costs of the parties in the arbitration agreement itself.

 

Enforcement of an arbitral award by third parties

With the increased popularity of funding arrangements within international arbitration, the ability for third parties to enforce awards has become an increasingly important consideration. In the UAE, a funder can enforce an arbitral award on an award creditor’s behalf if they have been granted the express power to do so by way of a power of attorney. However, the award would still have to be enforced in the name of the award creditor.

 

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

The New Civil Procedural Law contains provisions regarding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as discussed at Procedure for enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE.

The UAE and the New York Convention

The UAE became a signatory to the New York Convention in November 2006, ratifying it through Federal Decree No 43 of 2006. In theory, the UAE has ratified the Convention without reservation (see New York Convention enforcement table: status). However, whether the UAE courts would agree to enforce an award rendered in a non‑New York Convention country is untested and open to question.

Since signing the Convention, the UAE courts have, in broad terms, relaxed their adherence to the strict provisions of domestic legislation for ratification of foreign awards generally (although the shift in approach has been gradual) and have begun to correctly apply the more liberal enforcement regime of the New York Convention, under which enforcement of foreign awards may only be refused on the following grounds:

• The parties to the arbitration agreement were under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or the law of the country where the award was made (article V(1)(a), New York Convention).
• The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case (article V(1)(b)).
• The award deals with a difference not contemplated or falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration (article V(1)(c)).
• The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat of arbitration (article V(1)(d)).
• The award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by the courts at the seat of arbitration (article V(1)(e)).
• The subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the country where enforcement is sought, UAE law in this case (article V(2)(a)).
• Enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of the state in which enforcement is sought, namely the UAE (article V (2)(b)).

The final two grounds (those under article V(2)) are the only ones that, under the terms of the New York Convention, an enforcing court will consider of its own motion. The other grounds should only be considered, where raised by the party seeking to resist enforcement. For further discussion of the New York Convention, see Practice note.

On 19 October 2022, in Carnival SG PTE Ltd v Elan Qatar WLL (Appeal No. 790/2022, Commercial Cassation), the Dubai Court of Cassation upheld a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which rejected an application to enforce an LCIA award rendered in London. The Court of Cassation found that it did not have jurisdiction to order the enforcement of the foreign arbitral award as the judgment debtor itself was not domiciled in the UAE. The award creditor sought to rely on article III of the New York Convention, which requires each contracting state to enforce arbitral awards "in accordance with the rules or procedure where the award is relied upon" and that substantially more onerous conditions should not be imposed than those which apply to the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. However, the court ruled that, whilst the New York Convention did apply, the procedural rules of the court where enforcement is sought also still apply. The court refused enforcement on the basis that jurisdictional issues are matters of public policy and the court did not have jurisdiction under the relevant procedural rules as the award debtor was not domiciled in the UAE and the two companies (registered in the UAE) in which the award debtor held shares were not a party to the arbitral proceedings.

This judgment did not explore enforcement against a judgment debtor’s share in the profits or proceeds of liquidation of a company in which it holds shares, as permitted by Article 20 of the Federal Commercial Companies Law.

Other bilateral and multi‑lateral treaties

When dealing with an award rendered in a country that is not a signatory to the New York Convention, another potential route of enforcement could be via a treaty between the UAE and that particular state.

The UAE has a bilateral treaty with Somalia, which is yet to ratify the New York Convention, namely the Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation with Somalia 1972.

The UAE has also entered into the following multi‑lateral treaties relating to, among other issues, the enforcement of arbitral awards:

• Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation 1983 (also known as the Riyadh Convention).
• Protocol on Enforcement of Judgments, Letters Regulatory and Judicial Notices issued by the Courts of the Member States of the Arab Gulf Co‑operation Council 1995 (also known as the GCC Protocol).
• Agreement on Juridical and Judicial Cooperation In Civil And Commercial Matters For The Service Of Summons, Judicial Documents, Judicial Commissions, Execution Of Judgments And Arbitral Awards with India.
• Agreement on Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial matters with China in 2004.
• Treaty on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Extradition of Offenders, Cooperation in Civil, Commercial and Personal Matters with Morocco 2006.
• Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation with Syria 2002.
• Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation with Egypt 2000.
• Agreement on Legal and Judicial Cooperation with Jordan 1999.
• Treaty on Judicial Cooperation, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters with France 1992.

Each of these treaties also apply to, and are binding on, the off‑shore courts in the DIFC and ADGM.

Procedure for enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE

Article 223 of the New Civil Procedure Law applies the provisions of article 222 (regarding the enforcement of foreign court judgments) to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Foreign awards may, therefore, be executed in the UAE under the same conditions prescribed in the country in which the arbitral award was issued. Pursuant to article 222(2) of the New Civil Procedure Law, execution can be ordered following a petition submitted to the execution judge, by the party requesting execution on an ex parte basis. The judge is required to issue an order within five days from the date of the submission; however, such an order may be appealed.

Pursuant to article 222 of the New Civil Procedure Law, the UAE courts cannot order execution before verifying each of the following:

• The parties agreed to the arbitration and the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
• The award was delivered in accordance with the law of the country in which it was issued and duly ratified.
• The parties were duly notified and represented in accordance with the rules of the presiding arbitral institution.
• The award is final and binding on both parties.
• The award does not conflict with a judgment or order rendered by the UAE courts and is not contrary to public order or morals.

The requirements for filing lawsuits within the UAE courts, pursuant to article 44 of the New Civil Procedure Law, are also applicable to applications to enforce foreign arbitration awards. An application for enforcement must state the following information:

• The details of both parties to the arbitration.
• The court before which the petition is being filed.
• The filing date of the application.
• The subject matter, demands and grounds of the petition.

It must also be signed by the party making the application or its duly authorised representative.

If a party is seeking to enforce a foreign award which has been issued in a currency other than AED, the amount sought should be converted to AED in accordance with the applicable rate, as determined by the Court Treasury. In practice, any debate as to the applicable rate must be referred to the Court Accountant to determine the calculation of the conversion.

Pursuant to article 212(5) of the New Civil Procedure Law, an application for enforcement must be made within 15 years of the issuance of the award. In the event an enforcement application is commenced within this period, but the applicant then takes no action to pursue the enforcement for a period of more than 12 months, the enforcement application may be at risk of being time barred (article 212(4), New Civil Procedure Law).

Once an order has been issued granting enforcement of the foreign award, it shall immediately be enforceable in the UAE. Whilst the award debtor may submit an objection to the Court of Appeal, this will not affect the ability of the award creditor to enforce the award against the assets of the award debtor, unless the court orders otherwise.

Interim measures in support of enforcement

As with domestic awards, pursuant to article 211 of the New Civil Procedure Law, if circumstances arise which result in resistance to, or interruption of, the enforcement, the award creditor may apply immediately to the judge for interim measures, such as precautionary attachment orders.

Award creditors seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral awards must be conscious of what are regarded by some as idiosyncratic procedural requirements, which can create significant difficulties in the enforcement of an award. For example, on 21 April 2022, in Appeal No. 109/2022, Commercial Cassation, the Dubai Court of Cassation upheld an appeal to refuse the enforcement of a foreign award on the basis that the sole arbitrator had only signed the final page of the award, which included the operative section, rather than every page.

The award debtor argued that, under article III of the New York Convention, enforcement should be carried out in accordance with the procedural rules of the state in which enforcement is to take place. The court held that the meaning of "arbitral award" under article 43(1) of the Arbitration Law (the applicable procedural rules of the jurisdiction) should be interpreted to include both the operative section and the reasons for the award. Therefore, as the award was only signed by the arbitrator on the final page, which contained the operative part (but not any of the reasoning), the relevant procedural rules had not been properly complied with. As such, the court refused to apply the executory formula to the award for the purposes of enforcement.

 

Enforcing a DIFC award in the UAE

The first stage in the enforcement of an award rendered by an arbitral tribunal seated in the DIFC is for the DIFC courts to recognise the award. Under the DIFC Arbitration Law, the DIFC courts may only refuse to recognise an award on limited grounds, which essentially mirror Article V of the New York Convention (whose grounds are listed above, see The UAE and the New York Convention).

In practice, the applicant would need to file a Part 45 form online via the E‑Registry portal and provide the DIFC courts with an original hard copy of the award they are seeking to enforce, together with a certified hardcopy translation into Arabic, where the award was rendered in another language. The DIFC Courts’ Enforcement Department would then issue a Judicial Deputation Letter addressed to the Dubai courts for the execution of the Judgment and affix the executory formula on the translation along with the certified copy of the Judgment.

Once the award has been recognised, the DIFC courts have discretion to enter judgment in the terms of the award, and the resulting DIFC court judgment can then be enforced through the Dubai courts pursuant to Dubai Law No 12 of 2004, as amended by Dubai Law No 16 of 2011 (Judicial Authority Law) (JAL), which codified a reciprocal protocol of enforcement between the DIFC and on‑shore Dubai courts, which had been in place since 2009. The JAL states that, assuming certain procedural formalities are complied with, the Dubai courts have no jurisdiction to review the merits of a DIFC court judgment or order prior to its enforcement. Further, it provides that once enforced, the judgment or order will have the same status as a judgment or order of the Dubai courts. The same process may also be used in reverse, that is, when enforcing a Dubai‑seated award in the DIFC.

The DIFC Courts’ Registry has confirmed that, as of 15 October 2019, there had been 93 Part 45 enforcement actions between the DIFC and Dubai courts in 2019 alone, all of which were successful.

Notably, under the new DIFC‑LCIA Rules 2021, which remain in force for any arbitrations subject to them for now (see Off‑shore arbitral institutions), any award may be signed electronically, or in counterparts and assembled into a single instrument (article 26.2). If parties are intending to enforce an award in another jurisdiction, care should be taken to ensure that there is no requirement for a ‘wet’ signature for a foreign award to be recognised.

Finally, following the completion of certain procedural formalities with the relevant UAE authorities (such as having the judgment attested by the UAE Ministry of Justice), the order will, in theory, become enforceable in the execution courts of the other Emirates under Federal Law (and in the courts of the countries that are parties to applicable enforcement treaties, such as the Riyadh Convention). However, the route to enforcement in Emirates other than Dubai, as well as the wider region remains, uncertain and largely untested.

 

Enforcing an arbitral award in the DIFC

In 2008, the DIFC introduced the DIFC Arbitration Law, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law makes the DIFC Arbitration Law practical and comprehensible to all arbitration practitioners, providing a familiarity, efficiency and flexibility that adherence to international practices offers. The DIFC Arbitration Law covers all stages of the arbitral process, dealing with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards at articles 42 to 44.

An arbitral award, irrespective of the state or jurisdiction in which it was made, will be recognised as binding within the DIFC once it has been ratified by the DIFC courts. However, where the UAE has entered into an applicable treaty for the mutual enforcement of judgments, orders or awards, the DIFC courts will comply with the terms of such treaty (article 42(1), DIFC Arbitration Law). Therefore, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the DIFC will be subject to the provisions of the New York Convention.

In addition to written evidence regarding the application for enforcement and a draft order in English and Arabic, the party seeking to enforce the award must produce to the DIFC courts both of the following:

• The original arbitration agreement (or a duly certified copy).
• The original award (or a duly certified copy).
• (Article 42(2), DIFC Arbitration Law.)

If either the arbitration agreement or the award were not made in English, the DIFC courts may request that the party supply a duly certified translation (Article 42(2), DIFC Arbitration Law).

If the DIFC courts are satisfied that the award should be recognised, it will issue an order to that effect (article 43(1), DIFC Arbitration Law) in both English and Arabic (article 43(2)).

The grounds for refusing to recognise or enforce an award are contained in article 44 of the DIFC Arbitration Law. The DIFC courts have two limited grounds on which they can find, of their own motion, that an award cannot be recognised or enforced:

• The subject matter of the dispute would not have been capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the DIFC.
• The enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the UAE.
• (Article 44(1)(b), DIFC Arbitration Law.)

Further grounds for refusing to recognise or enforce an award will only be considered at the request of the party against whom the award is invoked (article 44(1), DIFC Arbitration Law). That party must furnish evidence to the court that:

• A party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity.
• The arbitration agreement was not valid according to the laws of the agreement, or under the jurisdiction where the award was made.
• The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator, the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present their case.
• The award deals with a dispute not falling within the terms of submission to arbitration. It is worth noting that those parts of the award that do fall within the terms of submission to arbitration can be enforced, provided that they can be separated from those parts of the award not so submitted.
• The tribunal was not constituted in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or absent any agreement, with the laws of the state or jurisdiction where the arbitration took place.
• The award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set‑aside or suspended by a court in the state or jurisdiction under which the award was made.
• (Article 44(1)(a), DIFC Arbitration Law.)

 

The DIFC courts as a "conduit jurisdiction" for the enforcement of foreign and domestic awards against assets located in on‑shore UAE

In a series of judgments from 2014 to 2016, the DIFC courts confirmed that DIFC law permits the court to be used as a so‑called "conduit jurisdiction" for the enforcement of both foreign and domestic arbitral awards in on‑shore UAE, even in circumstances where the award debtor has no presence or assets in the DIFC itself. See, for example, Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd v Meydan Group LLC (Claim No: ARB‑003‑2013) (referred to in Legal update) and Fran v Famaida (Claim No: ARB 002/2014). In addition, the DIFC Court of Appeal also confirmed that the DIFC Courts can be used as a "conduit jurisdiction" for the enforcement of foreign court judgments (see DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah (CA‑007‑2015)).

The DIFC courts claimed to have this jurisdiction under article 5(A)(1)(e) of the JAL and are required, under article 42(1) of the DIFC Arbitration Law, to recognise any foreign or domestic arbitral award, subject only to the procedural requirements and the limited defences to enforcement, contained in articles 43 and 44, respectively, of the DIFC Arbitration Law. In addition, the DIFC courts are required, under article 42(1) of the DIFC Arbitration Law and article 7 of the JAL, to enforce any foreign or domestic arbitration award within the DIFC, subject again to Articles 43 and 44 of the DIFC Arbitration Law.

The aforementioned judgments were welcomed by arbitration practitioners in the UAE, on the basis that they opened the door for award creditors to have both foreign and domestic arbitral awards (as well as foreign judgments) recognised and enforced in the DIFC first, thereby avoiding the often lengthy and unpredictable ratification process through the UAE courts (see Procedure for enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE). However, the use of this "conduit jurisdiction" now seems in doubt following decisions from the Joint Judicial Committee and Dubai courts at least in circumstances where the award debtor commences competing proceedings in on‑shore Dubai (see Joint Judicial Committee and New Judicial Authority).

Joint Judicial Committee and New Judicial Authority

In 2024, the Joint Judicial Committee was replaced by the New Judicial Authority by virtue of Decree No 29 of 2024 (NJA Decree). The New Judicial Authority is empowered to:

• Determine conflicts of jurisdiction between the on‑shore Dubai courts and the Judicial Bodies (including the DIFC courts) of Dubai.
• Rule on conflicting judgments between the on‑shore Dubai courts and the Judicial Bodies of Dubai.
• Propose new rules necessary to avoid such conflicts.
• Implement tasks assigned by the Ruler of Dubai or the Chairman of the Dubai Judicial Council.

The New Judicial Authority is comprised of seven members:

• The President of the Court of Cassation of Dubai as Chairman.
• The Vice President of the DIFC Courts as Deputy Chairman.
• The Secretary General of the Judicial Council of Dubai.
• The President of the Court of Appeal of Dubai.
• The President of the Court of First Instance of Dubai.
• Two judges from the DIFC Courts, as selected by the President of the DIFC.
• (Article 3, NJA Decree.)

The constitution of the New Judicial Authority is almost identical to that of the former Joint Judicial Committee.

Litigants are entitled to submit applications to the New Judicial Authority to give rulings on conflicts of jurisdiction, as well as conflicting judgments. A party wishing to submit a claim for determination by the New Judicial Authority must deposit a cash guarantee of AED3,000 in order for its claim to be accepted (article 8, NJA Decree). The New Judicial Authority’s decisions are final, binding and unappealable (article 9, NJA Decree).

Where there are conflicting proceedings or judgments in the on‑shore Dubai courts and a Judicial Body of Dubai, which are referred to the New Judicial Authority, the NJA Decree provides that the conflicting proceedings and the execution of conflicting judgments must be stayed, pending the New Judicial Authority’s decision (article 7(1), NJA Decree).

The ambit of this requirement in relation to the Joint Judicial Committee (before it was replaced by the New Judicial Authority) was considered by the DIFC Court of Appeal in Lakhan v Lamia [2021] DIFC CA 001. The Court of Appeal ruled that a stay should only be ordered where an actual conflict of jurisdiction occurs. A spurious application, made for tactical or abusive purposes, would not give rise to a stay. More importantly, the judgment considered what constitutes a conflict of jurisdiction. In that case, the defendant in on‑shore Dubai court proceedings commenced proceedings in the DIFC courts, seeking a declaration that an arbitration clause in the relevant contract was binding on the parties. An acknowledgment of service was filed indicating that the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts would be challenged, and a hearing was listed to determine the jurisdictional challenge.

The DIFC Court of Appeal ruled that there would only be a conflict of jurisdiction where both the on‑shore courts and the DIFC courts had taken positive action, either both asserting or declining jurisdiction, or where they issued inconsistent decisions on jurisdiction. The mere existence of potentially conflicting proceedings in both courts did not constitute a conflict of jurisdiction. Therefore, where the Dubai courts had accepted jurisdiction, but the DIFC courts had not made a decision on the outcome of the challenge to their jurisdiction, there was not yet a conflict and the stay was set aside.

Historically, the commencement of parallel proceedings in the on‑shore courts and the DIFC courts, coupled with the filing of a Joint Judicial Committee petition, would automatically result in an order to stay such proceedings. This could often result in lengthy delays whilst the petition was determined. However, the decision of the DIFC Court of First Instance in Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, ICICI Bank UK Plc and others v KBBO CPG Investment LLC, Mr Khaleefa Butti Bin Omair Yousif Almuhari and His Excellency Saeed Mohamed Butti Mohamed Alqebaisi and others (2021 CFI 045/2020) demonstrates the robust approach of the DIFC courts to the prevention of abusive tactics, such as parties commencing parallel proceedings in the on‑shore courts for the sole purpose of obtaining a stay from the Joint Judicial Committee. The court described such tactics as an "appalling abuse of process" and lifted the stay imposed by the Joint Judicial Committee by what was alleged to be a conflict of jurisdiction. It further ordered an anti‑suit injunction to prevent the commencement of oppressive on‑shore proceedings by certain parties.

The on‑shore Dubai is that the on‑shore courts would, in practice, continue their proceedings, notwithstanding a referral to the Joint Judicial Committee, unless ordered to stay the proceedings by a communication issued by the Joint Judicial Committee.

The Joint Judicial Committee handed down over 20 decisions. Some, but not all, of those have prevented the use of the "conduit jurisdiction" of the DIFC courts for the enforcement of both domestic and foreign arbitral awards.

While the New Judicial Authority’s remit extends beyond that of the Joint Judicial Committee, it is anticipated the New Judicial Authority will adopt broadly the same approach as the Joint Judicial Committee in its rulings.

Furthermore, article 11 of the NJA Decree confirms that the New Judicial Authority will consider and decide upon any claims which were before the Joint Judicial Committee when the NJA Decree came into force (4 April 2024), unless such claims were scheduled for adjudication. Given the potential relevance of the Joint Judicial Committee’s jurisprudence to the practice of the New Judicial Authority going forward, a summary of its key decisions of are set out below.

A significant difference between the Joint Judicial Committee and the New Judicial Authority is that article 9(c) of the NJA Decree expressly provides that the decisions of the New Judicial Authority are judicial precedent, binding on all the Judicial Bodies of Dubai. A failure by a judicial body to follow a decision of the New Judicial Authority would constitute a ground for appeal of a judgment (article 9(c), NJA Decree).

Decisions of the Joint Judicial Committee

In its first decision in the case of Daman Real Capital Partners Company LLC v Oger Dubai LLC, Cassation No 1/2016) (Daman), the Joint Judicial Committee ruled that the DIFC courts should "cease to entertain" an action to enforce an award rendered in on‑shore Dubai (even though the award debtor is a DIFC company and has assets in the freezone) because of the existence of parallel annulment proceedings in the on‑shore Dubai courts (see Legal update). Following this decision, the Dubai Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Daman, determining that the arbitration clause relied on by Oger was invalid. Whether the decision is correct or not, the fact that a substantial arbitral award can be declared null and void by the Dubai Court of Appeal, after a protracted legal battle, including intervention by the Joint Judicial Committee, indicates the increased complexity of undertaking arbitration and enforcement proceedings in Dubai, as well as the importance of examining the validity of arbitration clauses in contracts. For further discussion of this decision, see Legal update.

In Dubai Waterfront LLC v Chenshan Liu, Cassation No 2/2016 (Dubai Waterfront), which also concerned the enforcement of an on‑shore award, the award debtor did not have any assets located in the DIFC and, therefore, the award creditor wished the utilise the "conduit jurisdiction" of the DIFC courts. The Joint Judicial Committee, consistent with its decision in Daman, ruled that a conflict of jurisdiction had arisen and that the DIFC courts should "cease from entertaining the case" whilst the annulment proceedings were on foot in the Dubai courts.

Two further decisions, Marine Logistics Solutions LLC and another v Wadi Woraya LLC and others, Cassation No. 3/2016 and Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC v DNB Bank ASA, Cassation No. 5/2016, confirm that the Joint Judicial Committee will not intervene in circumstances where no parallel proceedings exist. However, the Joint Judicial Committee’s approach to the question of the DIFC courts’ status as a "conduit jurisdiction" for foreign decisions has yet to be tested in circumstances where there are parallel proceedings on foot in both the on‑shore courts and the DIFC courts (for whatever reason). (For further discussion of these decisions, see Legal update).

Through the Daman and Dubai Waterfront decisions, the Joint Judicial Committee signalled that arbitral awards rendered in on‑shore Dubai cannot be enforced in the DIFC courts, if the same award is also subject to ongoing annulment proceedings in the on‑shore Dubai courts.

The Joint Judicial Committee then went a step further in the case of Gulf Navigation Holding PSC v Jinhai Heavy Industry Co Limited (Formerly Zhoushan Junhaiwan Shipyard Co Ltd) (Cassation No 1/2017). It ordered the DIFC courts to cease proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitral award, rendered in a London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) arbitration, because the award creditor had filed, but not served, a new claim (albeit related to the same contract in dispute) before the Amicable Settlement of Disputes Centre of the Dubai Courts. The Joint Judicial Committee members from the DIFC courts provided a lengthy (and arguably correct) dissenting opinion regarding the decision.

In a further development, in a judgment handed down on 15 February 2017 (Case 1619/2016), the Dubai Court of First Instance found that the DIFC courts had exceeded their "exceptional" jurisdiction in the Banyan Tree case for the following reasons:

• The case did not relate to the DIFC, a DIFC body or establishment.
• The case did not arise out of a contract executed or performed in the DIFC, nor an incident in the DIFC.
• There was no agreement providing for DIFC jurisdiction.

This decision reflects the Dubai courts’ view that they are the courts of natural (or "general") jurisdiction in Dubai, and that they will automatically have jurisdiction over any case that falls outside the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction. It is one of various decisions rendered by the Joint Judicial Committee and the Dubai Court of First Instance in which they have addressed the jurisdictional imbalance between the on‑shore UAE courts and DIFC courts in the context of enforcement.

The Joint Judicial Committee’s on‑shore judges came to an interesting decision in the case of Sinbad Marine Inc LLC v Essam Al Tamimi (Cassation No 1/2018), in which the award debtor challenged the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts to hear an application to enforce a DIFC‑LCIA award rendered in an arbitration seated in on‑shore Dubai. The Joint Judicial Committee’s on¬shore judges dismissed the application on the basis that the DIFC‑LCIA Arbitration Centre was established in the DIFC and, as a result, the DIFC courts were the competent supervisory court to entertain the case. The Joint Judicial Committee’s DIFC court judges agreed that the application should be dismissed but on a different basis. They referred to article 41(1) of the DIFC Arbitration Law, which confirms that the DIFC courts can only set aside awards that are issued by a tribunal seated in the DIFC and, as a result, the Dubai courts were the only courts with jurisdiction to set aside the award. Accordingly, any application to set aside the award should proceed on‑shore. The minority commented further that there was no conflict of jurisdiction because a DIFC order for recognition and enforcement of the award had already been issued. It is unclear why the Joint Judicial Committee’s on‑shore judges distinguished this case from its earlier decisions discussed above, although it is possible that the fact the award was issued by the DIFC‑LCIA may have caused some confusion.

Further support for the DIFC as a "conduit jurisdiction" comes from Al Taena: Af Construction Company LLC v Power Transmission Gulf (Cassation No 8/2019), in which a dispute between two Abu Dhabi incorporated parties was referred to arbitration under the DIFC‑LCIA rules in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties. The Joint Judicial Committee dismissed an application to the Dubai courts to declare the arbitral award invalid, concluding that the DIFC courts were competent to hear actions for nullification in their curial capacity in accordance with article 41 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and alone upholding the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts to ratify and recognise the award. The Joint Judicial Committee held that it was immaterial that the arbitration had actually been conducted in the Dubai Marina, outside the physical boundaries of the DIFC, as the DIFC‑LCIA rules provide that the actual tribunal may hold hearings at any physical location at the tribunal’s discretion and such hearings would be deemed to be held in the DIFC.

Continuing availability of the DIFC "conduit jurisdiction"

The status of the DIFC courts as a "conduit jurisdiction" has generated significant market commentary. It appeared, in light of the case law discussed above, that the "conduit" route was no longer available to award creditors, at least in circumstances where the award debtor commences competing proceedings in on‑shore Dubai.

However, the case of ARB 006/2017 Isai v Isabelle may give some hope that the DIFC courts’ status as a "conduit jurisdiction" does still exist. In that case, the DIFC Court of First Instance ruled that the DIFC courts had jurisdiction to hear a claim for the recognition and enforcement of a DIFC‑LCIA award arising from an on‑shore arbitration, governed by the laws of the UAE. This is lent further support by the aforementioned case of Al Taena v Power Transmission Gulf. For further details see Legal update).

However, it is likely that the "conduit jurisdiction" of the DIFC courts will be addressed in due course by appropriate amendments to the Dubai JAL, although this development has now been expected for some years. Whilst the use of the DIFC courts as a "conduit jurisdiction" still exists as a potential option in certain cases, it is likely that amendments to that JAL may rule out the possibility of "conduit" enforcement in the future, in much the same way as amendments to the ADGM Founding Law in 2020 confirmed that the ADGM courts could not be used as a "conduit" for the enforcement of non‑ADGM judgments and awards in other jurisdictions outside of the ADGM, principally in on‑shore Abu Dhabi (see Legal update).

 

Conversion of DIFC courts judgments into DIFC‑LCIA arbitral awards

On 16 February 2015, the DIFC courts issued a new practice direction to permit the conversion of DIFC court judgments into DIFC‑LCIA arbitral awards that can be enforced internationally under the New York Convention (see Legal update). It remains to be seen whether, following the abolition of the DIFC‑LCIA, this route will remain available.