Proposed updates to the DIFC Arbitration Law: stronger tribunals, faster challenges and a new mediation framework

A significant update to the DIFC arbitration framework

The proposed amendments are wide-ranging. They would change the title of the legislation to the Arbitration and Mediation Law of 2026, introduce a new statutory framework for mediation, expand the powers of arbitral tribunals, shorten the period for challenging awards, and clarify a number of issues relating to arbitration agreements, confidentiality, funding, costs and enforcement.

Some of the changes are technical, while others are more substantive. Taken together, they suggest a clear direction of travel: the DIFC is seeking to make arbitration seated in the DIFC more efficient, more procedurally robust and less vulnerable to delay.

The proposed amendments would not generally apply to ongoing proceedings. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the draft law would apply only to arbitration and mediation proceedings commenced on or after the relevant commencement date, and to arbitral awards and mediation settlement agreements made or issued after that date. This would reduce the risk of procedural uncertainty in arbitrations that are already underway.

Stronger powers for arbitral tribunals

One of the main features of the proposed reforms is the expansion and clarification of tribunal powers. The draft law would introduce express provisions dealing with security for costs, consolidation, joinder, summary determination, provisional awards, peremptory orders and emergency arbitrators.

These changes are likely to be relevant in complex disputes, where procedural efficiency can have a significant impact on cost and timing. The proposed joinder and consolidation provisions may assist where related disputes arise under connected contracts, although consolidation would still depend on party agreement. The emergency arbitrator provision would also depend on party agreement, as it would apply only where the parties have agreed to rules providing for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator and one has been appointed under those rules.

These provisions would not remove the need for procedural fairness. Parties would still need to be given an opportunity to be heard where appropriate. However, the proposed amendments would give tribunals a clearer statutory basis for dealing with procedural obstruction and non-compliance.

Earlier determination of weak claims and issues

The proposed Article 24D would allow a tribunal, unless the parties agree otherwise, to make an award on a summary basis where it considers that a party has no real prospect of succeeding on a claim, issue or defence. Before exercising that power, the tribunal would be required to give the parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations.

This may be an important development as arbitration can sometimes allow weak claims or defences to proceed too far before being determined with the result that legal costs and expenses are unnecessarily incurred. In an appropriate case, summary determination may allow a tribunal to dispose of a claim, defence or discrete issue at an earlier stage, reducing time and cost and narrowing the issues that remain in dispute.

The draft law would also introduce an express power for tribunals to make awards on different issues at different times. This would confirm that a tribunal may, unless the parties agree otherwise, issue more than one award on different aspects of the matters to be determined, including on an issue affecting the whole claim or only part of the claims or cross-claims.

These powers may be useful where a critical legal question can be determined as a preliminary issue, or where an issue could materially affect the scope of the arbitration. They would not make every dispute suitable for early determination. Much will depend on the nature of the issue, the evidence required and whether the tribunal can determine the point fairly at an early stage.

A shorter window for challenging awards

The proposed amendments would also reduce the time period for applying to set aside a DIFC-seated award. Under the current law, an application for setting aside must be made within three months. The draft law would shorten that period to 30 days, unless the parties have agreed a longer period in writing.

This is a significant change. The current three-month period can delay enforcement, particularly where an award debtor brings an unmeritorious challenge near the end of the challenge period. The proposed shorter period would support the finality and enforceability of DIFC-seated awards. Parties would still retain the statutory right to seek to set aside an award; however, they would need to act quickly.

The draft law would also clarify aspects of the recognition and enforcement regime. In particular, the proposed amendments would introduce a standalone enforcement provision and clarify the circumstances in which the DIFC Court may adjourn its decision on recognition or enforcement where set-aside or suspension proceedings are pending before the relevant court.

The draft also seeks to prevent a party from resisting recognition or enforcement of a DIFC-seated award on grounds that should have been raised in a timely set-aside application, or that have already been dismissed by the DIFC Court.

A new statutory framework for mediation

The proposed law would also introduce a new Part 5 dealing with mediation. The DIFC Authority has invited comment on both the substance of the proposed mediation provisions and whether they should sit within the same law as the arbitration provisions or be enacted as a separate law.

The proposed mediation framework would address the commencement of mediation, the number and appointment of mediators, the role of the DIFC Courts Mediation Centre, the conduct of mediation, confidentiality, admissibility of mediation-related evidence in other proceedings, termination of mediation proceedings, and restrictions on a mediator acting as arbitrator in the same or a related dispute.

One of the most significant provisions is likely to be the proposed regime for mediated settlement agreements. Article 57 would provide that a settlement agreement arising from mediation is binding and enforceable. The DIFC Court would have jurisdiction to recognise and enforce such a settlement agreement irrespective of where the mediation was conducted and irrespective of whether the underlying dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court.

That may make the DIFC a more attractive forum for parties seeking a court-supported route to enforcement of mediated settlements. The proposed provisions would provide a statutory framework for mediation where mediation takes place, and for the enforcement of settlements reached through that process.

Other notable changes

There are a number of other proposed amendments that parties should be aware of. These include a proposed Article 12A on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, express recognition of unilateral or asymmetric arbitration agreements, a more flexible confidentiality regime, disclosure obligations for third-party funding, and provisions dealing with electronic communications, remote hearings and the signing of awards. In particular, the proposed Article 12A would mean that a governing law clause for the wider contract would not, by itself, amount to an express choice of law for the arbitration agreement.

What parties should look out for

If the proposed law goes ahead in its current form, parties choosing the DIFC as the seat of arbitration should consider whether their arbitration agreements and procedural arrangements reflect the new framework. This includes the law governing the arbitration agreement, joinder, consolidation, emergency arbitrators, summary determination, confidentiality, third-party funding and mediation. Parties should also be alert to the proposed 30-day time limit for set-aside applications.

The proposed amendments are still subject to consultation and may change before enactment. However, they indicate a clear attempt to modernise DIFC arbitration law and give tribunals stronger tools to manage proceedings efficiently which is something that clients demand. If enacted, they are likely to be important for parties who choose the DIFC as a seat of arbitration and for parties seeking to enforce awards or mediated settlement agreements through the DIFC Court.

Authored by Emerson Holmes and Jamie Phillips.