DIFC Proposes Significant Reforms to Arbitration Law

The 30-day public consultation period for the DIFC’s proposed amendments to its Arbitration Law closed on 10 July 2026, and the proposals deserve close attention. If enacted, these would represent the most significant overhaul of the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008 since its inception, with far-reaching implications for parties arbitrating in or through the DIFC.

Published on 11 June 2026 in Consultation Paper No. 2 of 2026, the proposals seek to “introduce substantive changes that significantly modernise the DIFC arbitration framework in line with current common law practice”. The ambition is clear: to close the gap between the DIFC’s existing arbitration legislation and the procedural tools available under leading institutional rules and comparable common law regimes.

A headline change is the proposed renaming of the legislation to the DIFC Arbitration and Mediation Law, signalling both the modernisation of the arbitration regime and the introduction of a dedicated statutory mediation framework.

The proposals cover substantial ground: emergency arbitrators, joinder and consolidation, summary determination, security for costs, confidentiality, court enforcement of interim measures, award challenges, and the law governing arbitration agreements. For practitioners, several reforms stand out as particularly significant.

Expanded tribunal powers. The amendments would introduce express provisions empowering tribunals to order security for costs (proposed Article 24A), issue provisional awards, grant interim measures and make peremptory orders (proposed Articles 24F and 24G). These provisions would bring the DIFC in line with powers already available under the LCIA and ICC rules, and address a gap that has, in practice, required parties to rely on institutional rules or inherent powers rather than statute.

Enhanced court support. Proposed Article 15 would confirm the DIFC Court’s power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings, regardless of whether the seat is the DIFC. This is a welcome clarification. Parties with DIFC-connected disputes, including those seated elsewhere in the UAE or the wider region, would gain an express statutory basis for seeking urgent court assistance, reinforcing the DIFC Court’s role as a supportive supervisory jurisdiction.

Summary determination. Proposed Article 24D would allow tribunals to determine a claim, defence or issue summarily where a party has no real prospect of succeeding. This reflects a wider trend in international arbitration (and mirroring provisions already adopted by the SIAC, HKIAC and LCIA), and would equip DIFC-seated tribunals with an important tool for disposing of unmeritorious claims at an early stage, reducing cost and delay.

Clarified award categories. The proposals would also clarify the status of different forms of award. Proposed Article 24E would permit provisional awards, while proposed Article 37B would expressly allow awards on different issues at different stages. The expanded definition of “Award” — now encompassing interim, partial, summary and provisional awards — would provide greater legal certainty for enforcement.

Shortened set-aside window. The period for applying to set aside a DIFC-seated award would be reduced from three months to 30 days from receipt. This is a significant shift that would promote finality and benefit successful parties seeking swift enforcement and parties and their advisers will need to be alive to the compressed timeline for bringing challenges.

The new mediation framework would treat settlement agreements arising from mediation as binding, with the DIFC Court empowered to enforce them, broadening the DIFC’s dispute resolution offering beyond arbitration.

The DIFC has benchmarked its proposals against leading institutional rules (LCIA, ICC and DIAC) and arbitration legislation in England and Wales, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia. The result is a reform package that, if enacted, would place the DIFC’s statutory framework among the most modern and comprehensive in the region.

These proposals represent a clear statement of intent from the DIFC to compete with the world’s leading arbitration seats. For businesses, investors and legal practitioners operating in the Middle East, the reforms, if enacted, would offer a materially enhanced framework for resolving disputes. As these changes progress through the legislative process, parties with interests in the region should consider how the reforms may affect their dispute resolution strategies and existing contractual arrangements.

Beale & Co’s international arbitration team regularly advises on disputes seated in the DIFC and across the Middle East. If you would like to discuss the implications of these proposed reforms, please get in touch.