The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has appointed Jehad Abdulrazzaq Kazim as its executive director, making her the first Emirati woman to take on a leadership role at the institution. She has over 22 years of extensive legal and ADR experience and prior to joining DIAC, she was Vice-President of the Legal Affairs Sector of Dubai Chambers. Her mission focuses on enhancing efficiency of operations, optimising performance and improving alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services through business excellence, stakeholder engagement and disruptive innovation.

The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has announced a comprehensive revision to its Table of Fees and Costs, set to take effect from 1 January 2025. This update, the first in over 13 years, introduces new general provisions to clarify payment practices and ensures market-competitive compensation for the Centre and neutrals. Key changes include a revised fee structure for arbitrators and administrative costs, both now based on the amount in dispute. The new table also incorporates provisions for VAT and similar taxes and introduces a pledge system for security on fees and costs. Additionally, DIAC has updated its registration fees and implemented a more detailed tribunal fee structure. These changes aim to enhance DIAC's services and attract qualified neutrals, ultimately benefiting all parties involved in dispute resolution processes administered by the Centre.

The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has established two new initiatives on 24 September 2025: the DIAC Academy for ADR education and training, and an ADR Lab for practical experience and research. The DIAC Academy will deliver expert-led programmes developed in partnership with leading institutions and industry specialists. These courses will cover both theoretical and practical aspects of dispute resolution, encompassing domestic and international contexts to provide comprehensive training for professionals in the field.The development comes as DIAC's Arbitration Rules rank 14th globally among preferred arbitration rules according to the 2025 Queen Mary University of London survey, making it the only institution from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia region to feature in the global top 15.

Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has launched a virtual reality dispute resolution forum in the metaverse, in which parties can participate in proceedings from anywhere in the world. This has been done as part of DIAC’s push towards sustainability, eliminating the need for physical transportation for attendance at arbitration centres and tribunals around the world, as well as its emphasis on embracing technology as a means to drive growth and development.

The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has entered into a strategic technology partnership with Opus 2, a global leader in legal software and hearing services. This collaboration, announced on 21 January 2025, aims to enhance DIAC's dispute resolution capabilities through the implementation of a state-of-the-art digital platform. The new system will streamline arbitration processes, offering e-filing, case registration, and secure document submission functionalities. Additionally, DIAC users will gain access to Opus 2's advanced hearing technologies, including virtual hearings, electronic bundles, and real-time transcription services. This partnership underscores DIAC's commitment to innovation and excellence in alternative dispute resolution, positioning it as a frontrunner in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia region.

The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) has released its 2023 annual report. In 2023, DIAC registered 355 cases. 44% involved in international disputes. The international nature of DIAC's caseload is evident in the diverse nationalities of the involved parties, which spanned 48 countries across all continents.

Arbitration analysis: In the case of Neal v Nadir, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of Appeal upheld the enforceability of foreign interim arbitral awards, reinforcing the DIFC’s commitment to arbitration and international legal standards. The court held that interim awards, which are not final, can still be recognized and enforced within the DIFC jurisdiction. This decision is significant for practitioners in international arbitration and commercial law, as it underscores the DIFC Courts' supportive stance on arbitration and offers clarity on the enforceability of interim measures. Written by Mahmoud Abuwasel, managing partner at Wasel & Wasel.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has handed down a ground-breaking advisory judgment on the interpretation of the statutory regimes in the DIFC governing trusts and foundations. Written by Tom Stewart Coats of XXIV Old Buildings.

Arbitration analysis: the DIFC Court of Appeal partially set aside a DIFC-seated DIAC award under Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008 (Arbitration Law) because Oheo Bank (Bank) had no reasonable opportunity to address a regulatory claim first advanced in post-hearing submissions. The court held that intervention requires a high threshold of real unfairness or real practical injustice, but that fairness may require a tribunal to invite further submissions before deciding a materially different case. It rejected the scope challenge under Article 41(2)(a)(iii), adopting a practical, non-pleading-bound approach to scope. The decision also underscores the need for adequately reasoned first-instance judgments and careful pleading of arbitral claims. Produced in partnership with Antonia Birt of Reed Smith LLP.

Arbitration analysis: By order of 25 September 2024, Justice Moran of the DIFCCFI, applying the Rules of the DIFC Courts 2014 (the RDC), declined the parties’ application for costs, ordering each party to bear its own costs, with respect to Neven’s application for interim relief in support of arbitration in circumstances in which part of the relief was plainly without merit and the remainder of the relief was met by Nole by entering into an undertaking in favour of Neven with respect to certain corporate transactions that were the subject of a dispute between the parties in arbitration. Written by Dr Gordon Blanke, founding principal at Blanke Arbitration Dubai/London/Paris.

Arbitration analysis: In the case of Novak v Norwood, Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi in the DIFC Court of First Instance upheld a previous order recognizing an arbitral award worth over US$1.2bn in favor of the defendants, Norwood, and Numair. The claimants, Novak, Nola, and Nadim, sought to set aside the award on public policy grounds. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing the high threshold for setting aside arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law. This decision underscores the DIFC Courts’ commitment to upholding arbitral awards and provides clarity on the application of public policy in set-aside proceedings. The decision also upholds the worldwide freezing order granted by the DIFC Court on 12 May 2023 against the claimants. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at Reed Smith.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application by Muzama, an Iraqi company (the ‘Claimant’) to set aside an arbitral award rendered under the ICC Rules (the ‘Award’) that had been rendered in favour of Mihanti, a Dutch company (the ‘Defendant’). While the Claimant relied on a number of grounds in seeking to set aside the Award, the DIFC Court dismissed the application in its entirety. In doing so, the DIFC Court gave helpful guidance on the interpretation and application of several key provisions of the DIFC Arbitration Law of 2008 (the ‘DIFC Arbitration Law’), including in relation to Article 9 (waiver of right to object); Article 41(2)(a)(iii) (where a dispute or matter may have been decided outside the scope of the submission to arbitration); and Article 41(2)(b)(iii) (where an award may be in conflict with the public policy of the UAE). The judgment is of particular interest in terms of how the DIFC Court dealt with last point, which dealt with an argument that the award should be set aside on the basis of its being tainted by corruption. Written by David Hume, partner at Shearman & Sterling LLP.