We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Privacy Policy
Commercial arbitration (DIAC, ICC, LCIA, SCCA, CRCICA), DIFC Courts, French Cour d'appel, expert determination, mediation, and cross-border enforcement. GSDA has been in the room — not on the sideline.
The arbitration clause that no one read at signing is the most important clause in the contract — it determines the forum, the law, the procedure, and the enforceability of the award. By the time it matters, it cannot be changed..
The party that arrived at arbitration with the better facts but the wrong strategy lost — because arbitration is not won by the party that is right; it is won by the party that understood the tribunal's decision-making framework before it filed its first submission.
Commercial disputes are rarely just about the law. They are about leverage, timing, and the ability to enforce a result across borders. The company that understands the enforcement landscape before filing proceedings has a structural advantage over the one that discovers it after winning an award it cannot collect on.
DIAC 2022 Rules vs. ICC 2021 Rules — the differences in emergency arbitrator provisions, consolidation of related claims, and third-party joinder determine whether related disputes in a single project can be heard together or must be pursued separately
DIFC-LCIA rules terminated in 2021 — parties with DIFC-LCIA arbitration clauses now have their disputes administered by DIAC under transitional arrangements; many parties do not know this and are filing in the wrong forum
UAE Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 — the grounds for annulment under Article 53 and the specific procedural errors that have caused awards to be set aside in Abu Dhabi and Dubai courts in the past three years
Saudi Arbitration Law (Royal Decree M/34 of 2012) — Article 50 grounds for annulment, the SCCA's 2023 Rules, and the specific difference between an award rendered under SCCA rules and one rendered under UNCITRAL rules as it affects enforcement through Saudi courts
New York Convention enforcement — the distinction between the five grounds for refusal under Article V and the practical experience of enforcing against assets in different GCC states, including the 'public policy' objection that has been used by Saudi and UAE courts to refuse recognition of specific award types
French annulment proceedings — the Paris Cour d'appel is the supervisory court for arbitrations seated in France; it has one of the lowest annulment rates of any major arbitral seat, making Paris an exceptionally award-friendly seat for international transactions
Related Sectors
Related Services
The challenges you face
Every day we hear these concerns from CEOs, CFOs and general counsel across the GCC and Europe. If any of these sound familiar, you're not alone — and we can help.
The clause specifies 'ICC arbitration in Dubai' without clarifying whether Dubai means DIFC or onshore. The ICC Secretariat in Paris will administer the case, but the seat of arbitration — which determines the supervisory court and the annulment risk — is ambiguous. DIFC Courts and Dubai onshore courts both claim jurisdiction. The counterparty is exploiting the ambiguity to delay proceedings while you spend six figures on jurisdictional motions.
The arbitration cannot proceed until the seat is determined. Both DIFC Courts and Dubai Courts receive applications. The Judicial Tribunal takes 6–12 months to rule. During that period, no interim relief is available from either court system, and the counterparty is restructuring its assets.
The award was rendered in Dubai under DIAC 2022 Rules. The counterparty's assets are in Saudi Arabia. Enforcement requires converting the DIAC award into a Saudi court judgment through a recognition process under the Saudi Enforcement Law and the Riyadh Convention. The Saudi courts review the award for compliance with Saudi public policy — and the recognition process takes 18–24 months, during which the counterparty can move assets.
The AED 45 million award costs a further AED 800,000 in Saudi legal fees to enforce. The counterparty uses the 18–24 month enforcement period to transfer assets to a third-party entity. By the time the Saudi court issues an enforcement order, the assets available for attachment are worth a fraction of the award.
A Board Director who approved a contract with a UAE Federal Courts dispute resolution clause discovers that UAE court proceedings are conducted entirely in Arabic, the timeline to a first instance judgment is 3–4 years, there is no disclosure mechanism comparable to common law discovery, and the counterparty's strategy is to delay through procedural motions, adjournments, and the three-tier appeal process. The Board Director assumed 'UAE Courts' was equivalent to English courts. It is not.
The dispute that was expected to resolve in 12 months is entering its third year. Legal costs have exceeded the original claim value. The counterparty has no incentive to settle because delay costs it nothing. The Board Director faces questions from the audit committee about why the contract did not specify DIFC Courts or arbitration.
A company filed an ICC arbitration two years ago and spent USD 4 million in legal fees, expert costs, and tribunal fees to obtain an award of USD 12 million. The award is unenforceable because the counterparty moved its assets during the arbitration — transferring property to a related entity, restructuring its corporate group to place assets beyond the reach of the award creditor, and closing its bank accounts in the jurisdiction where the award was rendered.
USD 4 million in sunk costs with no recovery. The award exists on paper but cannot be enforced against any identifiable assets. The failure to obtain pre-arbitration freezing orders or to trace assets before filing means the enforcement options available post-award are limited to expensive multi-jurisdictional proceedings against entities that may have been specifically designed to defeat enforcement.
A main contractor has disputes with the employer under a DIAC clause, with its principal subcontractor under an ICC clause, and with a specialist subcontractor under an ad hoc UNCITRAL clause. All three disputes arise from the same project delay event. Consolidation is legally impossible because the three arbitration agreements specify different institutions, different rules, and different tribunal appointment mechanisms. The main contractor must pursue three separate arbitrations, with three separate tribunals, and three separate sets of costs.
Triplication of legal costs, expert fees, and management time. Risk of inconsistent findings — one tribunal may find that the delay was caused by the employer while another finds it was caused by the subcontractor. The main contractor cannot present its case coherently because the evidence is split across three proceedings that cannot be joined.
A company settled a dispute under pressure from its insurer, accepting a reduced payment in exchange for a release of claims. The settlement agreement released claims 'arising under the contract' but did not release claims 'arising in connection with the contract' — including tortious claims, unjust enrichment, and statutory claims that were not within the scope of the contractual release. The counterparty is now pursuing follow-on claims that the company believed had been resolved.
The settlement that was supposed to close the dispute has instead opened a new front. The company has already paid away its leverage (the original claim) and now faces additional claims with no counterclaim to trade against. The insurer that pressured the settlement refuses to fund the defence of the follow-on claims because they fall outside the original notification.
Don't let these problems compound.
Let's solve them together.
ICC, DIAC, LCIA, SCCA, and CRCICA institutional arbitrations — seat strategy, emergency arbitrator applications, multi-party and multi-contract disputes, tribunal constitution, document production under IBA Rules, and advocacy before tribunals of three. Particular strength in construction, energy, JV, and banking arbitrations where the commercial stakes demand sector-specialist representation.
Advisory on DIFC Courts of First Instance and Court of Appeal proceedings, Dubai and Abu Dhabi Federal Court matters, enforcement of foreign judgments through the DIFC conduit jurisdiction pathway, and navigation of the Judicial Tribunal process when jurisdiction is contested between DIFC and onshore courts. English-language common-law proceedings within the UAE for parties that need disclosure, cross-examination, and predictable procedural timelines.
Advisory on Tribunal de commerce, Cour d'appel de Paris, and Cour de cassation proceedings for commercial disputes, shareholder matters, and construction claims. Référé d'urgence (emergency relief) applications for freezing orders and evidence preservation on compressed timelines. Deep fluency in French civil procedure, the expertise judiciaire system, and the interaction between French court proceedings and international arbitration.
New York Convention enforcement of arbitral awards, bilateral treaty pathways for French judgments, Riyadh Convention enforcement across GCC states, DIFC-Dubai enforcement protocol, and cross-border asset mapping. We trace assets before proceedings begin, obtain pre-award freezing orders, coordinate multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaigns, and pursue anti-suit injunctions and Mareva orders where assets are at risk of dissipation.
Contractual dispute avoidance mechanisms — Dispute Adjudication Boards (DAB/DRB), expert determination, standing neutral provisions, and structured mediation through CEDR, ICC Mediation, and DIAC Mediation Centre. For clients not yet in a dispute, we design dispute resolution architectures into contracts that match the forum, procedure, and enforcement pathway to the transaction's risk profile.
It depends on whether 'Dubai' is sufficiently clear to identify a seat. The ICC Secretariat will administer the case regardless, but the seat of arbitration — which determines the supervisory court and the law governing the arbitration — is ambiguous. 'Dubai' could mean DIFC (a common-law jurisdiction with its own courts) or onshore Dubai (a civil-law jurisdiction under UAE Federal Courts). If the counterparty challenges the clause, the ICC Court will determine the seat, but this adds months of procedural delay and cost. A well-drafted clause specifies the institution (ICC), the seat (e.g., 'DIFC, Dubai' or 'Paris'), the number of arbitrators, and the language. GSDA reviews and drafts arbitration clauses as part of every contract engagement.
The ICC's target is to render an award within 6 months of the Terms of Reference for expedited proceedings (claims under USD 3 million) and within 12 months for standard proceedings. In practice, standard ICC arbitrations in the Gulf take 18–24 months from Request for Arbitration to Final Award for commercial disputes, and 24–36 months for complex construction or multi-party disputes. The timeline is driven by the complexity of the case, the number of procedural applications, expert evidence, and the tribunal's availability. GSDA manages ICC arbitrations with disciplined case management to minimise unnecessary delay.
Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Saudi Arabia is governed by the Saudi Arbitration Law (Royal Decree M/34 of 2012) and the Riyadh Convention (for awards from other Arab states) or the New York Convention (for awards from non-Arab states). The award creditor files an enforcement application with the Saudi Enforcement Court (under the Ministry of Justice). The court reviews the award for compliance with Saudi public policy, due process, and the arbitrability of the subject matter. The process typically takes 12–24 months. Practical considerations include ensuring the award does not violate Saudi public order (e.g., interest awards may be reduced or refused), and that the debtor's Saudi assets have been identified and traced before enforcement begins. GSDA coordinates enforcement strategy across GCC jurisdictions.
Yes. Under the DIAC 2022 Rules, a party can apply for an Emergency Arbitrator within one day of filing the Request for Arbitration. The Emergency Arbitrator is appointed within one day and must render a decision within 15 days. Emergency measures can include freezing orders, evidence preservation, and orders to maintain the status quo. Separately, UAE Federal Arbitration Law Article 18 permits parties to apply to the UAE courts for interim relief in support of arbitration, even before the tribunal is constituted. DIFC Courts also have jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of DIAC arbitrations where there is a DIFC nexus. GSDA advises on the optimal interim relief strategy depending on the urgency, the assets at risk, and the jurisdictional landscape.
Under UAE Federal Arbitration Law Article 53, annulment must be filed within 30 days of notification. Grounds are limited: no valid arbitration agreement, party incapacity, breach of due process, tribunal exceeded its mandate, improper constitution, or conflict with UAE public order. UAE courts do not review the merits. Annulment rates in the UAE are low and decreasing as courts become more pro-arbitration. For awards seated in Paris, the Cour d'appel reviews under Article 1520 of the Code of Civil Procedure — Paris has one of the lowest annulment rates globally. For Saudi-seated awards, Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law provides similar limited grounds. GSDA defends awards against annulment and prosecutes annulment applications where genuine procedural defects exist.
Consolidation is only possible if the arbitration agreements permit it or if both proceedings are under the same institutional rules and the institution agrees. Under ICC 2021 Rules Article 10, the ICC Court can consolidate arbitrations where all claims are made under the same arbitration agreement, or where the claims arise out of the same transaction and the arbitration agreements are compatible. DIAC 2022 Rules have similar consolidation provisions. If the two arbitrations are under different institutions (e.g., one ICC and one DIAC) or under incompatible arbitration agreements, consolidation is legally impossible. This is why contract architecture matters — related contracts in the same project should use the same arbitration clause. GSDA advises on dispute resolution clause coordination across multi-contract transactions.
GSDA secured a USD 87 million ICC award in our favour on a construction dispute in the Gulf, then enforced it across two jurisdictions in under six months. From the initial merits assessment to final recovery, they executed a strategy that our previous counsel said was impossible.
CEO — International Construction Group, Paris Headquarters
Insights
The GSDA advantage
Multi-forum capability — we advise and support arbitration before ICC, DIAC, LCIA, SCCA, and provide advisory services across DIFC, ADGM, French, UAE, and Saudi commercial proceedings, choosing the forum that gives our clients the strongest procedural advantage.
Trilingual advisory — our consultants advise in Arabic, English, and French, eliminating the interpretation risk that undermines credibility in multilingual proceedings.
Enforcement-first strategy — we plan enforcement from day one, mapping assets and obtaining interim relief before proceedings begin, with the end goal of collecting the award, not just winning it on paper.
Our offices
Our dispute resolution & arbitration team operates from offices in France, the Gulf, and North Africa — ensuring local expertise wherever your business needs it.
Saudi Arabia Practice
Five offices across the Kingdom — Riyadh, Jeddah, Dammam, Makkah & Madinah — serving Vision 2030 giga-projects, MISA-licensed foreign investors, and international contractors.
Knowledge hub