The commercial revolution: UAE courts close loopholes - what this means for arbitration in 2026

The landscape for arbitration in Dubai just shifted. Two landmark decisions have closed loopholes that parties have exploited for years to delay and derail dispute resolution. If you are drafting contracts, managing claims or advising clients in the UAE, the rules of engagement have changed. Here is what happened and why it matters.  

Decision 1: anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals are final

The Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed (Decision 657 of 2025) that arbitral tribunals in UAE-seated arbitrations possess exclusive authority to order interim measures under Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law, including anti-suit injunctions preventing parallel proceedings in the courts. This may sound technical, but the practical impact is significant.

Previously, losing parties could challenge interim measures awarded by a tribunal in the courts, often to delay or frustrate the arbitral proceedings, and effectively override the arbitrator's order and undermine the jurisdiction of the tribunal or arbitral centre. The Court of Cassation has finally closed this door firmly shut. It held that:

• Only the arbitral tribunal can modify, suspend, or revoke interim measures it has granted
• Local courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with tribunal decisions on interim relief
• Anti-suit injunctions fall squarely within the scope of Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law (Law No.6 of 2018)

Why this saves money and accelerates resolution: Parties can no longer (at least not without exposure to the consequential costs) wage a costly secondary battle in the onshore courts to overturn a tribunal's protective measures. For parties seeking urgent relief, this creates a degree of certainty that the tribunal's order will stick. This is even more relevant in an era where the rules of many arbitral centres now allow a party to seek emergency before a tribunal is constituted.

Eliminating costly and frustrating delays to the arbitral process will be a welcome relief to parties and practitioners alike.  

Decision 2: award signature requirements harmonised

For years, parties have weaponised technicalities over award signatures. Different emirates interpreted Article 41 of the Federal Arbitration Law differently: Dubai required signatures on every page; Abu Dhabi and Ras Al-Khaimah took a more pragmatic view. This resulted in legal uncertainty and a wealth of enforceability challenges based on formality rather than substance.

The Federal-Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority, Decision No. 1 seeks to resolve this with clarity:

• Arbitrators must sign only the final page of an award for it to be valid
• Signatures on intermediate pages are no longer a legal requirement
• A lack of a signature on every page cannot be the basis for an annulment claim or enforcement challenge

This decision eradicates the ‘go-to’ tactic deployed by recalcitrant parties. Those facing an unfavourable award will no longer be able to challenge enforcement based on unsigned pages of an award.

These tactical objections often succeeded in the Dubai courts, forcing parties into further litigation or to consider expensive settlements. Now, the courts across all seven emirates will apply a uniform standard, making awards harder to attack on technical grounds. 

In principle, enforcement should become faster and cheaper. For the Dubai arbitration community, and those parties choosing Dubai as the seat for an international dispute, this alignment with international conventions (where final-page signatures are universal practice) enhances the enforceability of UAE awards abroad under the New York Convention.

The practical upshot: faster, cheaper, more predictable arbitration

Dubai's transformation into a truly arbitration-friendly forum continues to evolve. The implications for future disputes are substantial:

Cost reduction: Elimination of secondary court battles over interim measures and signature technicalities will reduce costs. Parties will save on legal fees, court filings, and delay related costs. Securing lock-up of old debts will be quicker.

Speed: A tribunals' decision on interim measures now commands respect without court interference and its awards are no longer subject to procedural hurdles that previously derailed enforcement.

Predictability: The decisions each eliminate emirate-dependent rulings and unwelcome delay.

Global credibility: Awards issued by UAE seated tribunals now conform to international best practice and ought to face fewer challenges in foreign courts.  Similarly, foreign issued awards ought to face fewer obstacles to enforcement in the UAE.

For practitioners and parties settling disputes in Dubai, 2025 marks a year of matured growth. What once required tactical manoeuvring now requires straightforward adherence to substantive law. That shift from form to substance aligns the arbitral process with international best practice and makes choosing the UAE and Dubai, as a seat for dispute resolution, an ever more attractive option.