DIAC arbitration

DIAC arbitration

The Dubai International Arbitration Centre was established by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Dubai Chamber) in 1994 as the Centre for Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration.

Decree No (34) of 2021 reorganised the DIAC. It outlines its objectives, functions and structure. According to the decree, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) will be the default seat

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration weekly highlights—30 October 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England & Wales, including a UK Supreme Court judgment, case reports from Hong Kong, Singapore the USA and updates from ACICA. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

ASA announces 2026 summit programme and early bird registration

The Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) has announced that the Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026 will take place from 14–16 January in Geneva, followed by 16–18 January in Crans-Montana, bringing together global experts and professionals to explore the latest developments in arbitration. The third event will feature the ASA below 40 Seminar, the Innovation Conference and the ASA Winter Conference, with an early bird registration at CHF 748 until 20 November 2025. Prominent speakers include representatives from major firms and institutions such as Schellenberg Wittmer, Clifford Chance, CMS, ICC, and AAA/ICDR.

One arbitration, two courts, multiple injunctions (MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: This dispute is a rare case of two competing court interventions in relation to an arbitration. A non-seat court in Delhi decided to exercise certain supervisory functions by issuing an anti-arbitration injunction. The seat court in Singapore disagreed that the non-seat court had the jurisdiction to do so, and also issued an anti-suit injunction. EPIL (the contractor) sought to set aside a Singapore-seated partial award in the Singapore High Court. The Singapore High Court (as the seat court) dismissed EPIL’s setting aside application, and its attempt to introduce apparent bias of an arbitrator as an additional ground for setting aside. While EPIL brought another challenge application against the same arbitrator in Singapore, it has commenced proceedings in the Delhi Court also to challenge the arbitrator, and to enjoin the counterparty (MSA, the sub-contractor) from continuing with the Arbitration. The Singapore Court first granted an interim anti-suit injunction for the Delhi Proceedings. But the Delhi Proceedings carried on, and led to an interim anti-arbitration injunction by the Delhi Proceedings. The Singapore Court in its judgment granted a permanent anti-suit injunction against EPIL in relation to the Delhi Proceedings, finding also that the Delhi Court had no power to intervene in the Arbitration. Written by Violet Huang, counsel at Colin Seow Chambers.

USA—D.C. Circuit (Court of Appeal) rules on sovereign immunity and arbitrability concerning an ISDS award (Deutsche Telekom v India)

Arbitration analysis: After India terminated a satellite spectrum lease deal, Deutsche Telekom (DT) initiated arbitration under the Germany-India Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Despite India’s contentions that the BIT’s arbitration clause did not extend to the parties’ dispute, the tribunal, along with courts in Switzerland, Germany and Singapore held in favor of DT. The US district court likewise confirmed the award, rejecting India’s claims on sovereign immunity and forum non conveniens, and India’s substantive defenses were forfeited or precluded. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case, holding that the district court erred by refusing to consider India’s substantive defenses. The court determined that India’s claim to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) was ‘colorable’ and the legal boundary of challenges to the existence of an arbitration agreement and those concerning its scope were unclear, which is an issue currently pending before the US Supreme Court in a different petition for certiorari. Written by Gizem Alper, Independent International legal and ADR consultant.