UAE case law in construction arbitration has become an essential reference point within Construction & Projects Disputes as the country develops a sophisticated arbitration ecosystem that regularly handles complex disputes over delay, variations, defects, payment issues and contractual interpretation. With institutions such as DIAC and ADCCAC, and common law courts in DIFC and ADGM, construction stakeholders increasingly rely on arbitration as the primary forum for resolving high value disputes. Understanding how UAE courts approach arbitration agreements, jurisdiction challenges, enforcement of awards and procedural fairness is now critical for employers, contractors and consultants operating in the region.
Arbitration is widely preferred in UAE construction projects because it offers privacy, flexibility and access to specialist tribunals familiar with technical issues and industry practices. FIDIC based contracts and bespoke project documents typically include arbitration clauses that reflect the parties desire to avoid lengthy, public court proceedings. UAE case law has increasingly supported this choice by confirming that properly constituted arbitrations will be respected and awards enforced, provided core procedural safeguards are observed.
Several themes recur in UAE judgments that guide how construction arbitration is conducted and how awards are treated at the enforcement or annulment stage.
Recent decisions show a strong judicial tendency to uphold arbitral awards and to resist attempts to reopen the merits of a dispute. Courts generally confirm that they will not re evaluate evidence or substitute their own view for that of the tribunal. Annulment is reserved for clear violations of the UAE Arbitration Law, such as serious procedural irregularity, lack of jurisdiction or breach of public policy in a narrow sense.
UAE courts consistently emphasise that arbitration clauses must be clear, in writing and agreed by properly authorised signatories. Where arbitration clauses are incorporated by reference into subcontracts or collateral agreements, courts examine whether the intention to arbitrate is sufficiently explicit. Ambiguity, lack of signature by an authorised representative or failure to comply with corporate formalities can render clauses invalid, which in turn affects the enforceability of awards.
Disputes over jurisdiction frequently arise in construction projects that involve multiple contracts or overlapping parties. Courts support the principle that arbitrators may rule on their own jurisdiction, and they generally interpret arbitration clauses broadly to encompass a wide range of construction related claims. However, parties who fail to raise jurisdiction objections in a timely manner risk being treated as having waived those objections when an award is later presented for enforcement.
When reviewing awards, UAE courts focus closely on whether each party had a reasonable opportunity to present its case and respond to the other side. Awards have been set aside where notice of proceedings or hearings was inadequate, where parties were denied a fair chance to present evidence, or where the tribunal went beyond the scope of issues submitted. Conversely, courts dismiss challenges that merely express dissatisfaction with the outcome rather than genuine procedural prejudice.
Case law underscores the importance of independence, impartiality and proper disclosure by arbitrators. Awards may be vulnerable where undisclosed conflicts of interest are later discovered or where the appointment process deviated materially from the agreed rules. At the same time, courts recognise that strategic or tactical attempts to disqualify arbitrators without substantive grounds should not be allowed to derail proceedings.
Construction arbitrations typically involve extensive expert evidence on programming, delay, quantum and technical engineering issues. UAE courts affirm that assessment of expert reports and testimony lies within the tribunal’s discretion. Challenges based on the argument that the tribunal preferred one expert over another or misinterpreted technical evidence rarely succeed, absent clear indications of procedural misconduct or failure to consider essential evidence.
Public policy objections are raised frequently but succeed only in limited circumstances. Courts interpret public policy narrowly, focusing on fundamental legal principles and mandatory rules rather than general dissatisfaction with the award. This approach provides reassurance that construction arbitration awards will not be lightly disturbed at the enforcement stage.
The DIFC and ADGM courts, operating under common law frameworks, have become important enforcement venues for regional and international awards. Their jurisprudence reinforces pro enforcement principles, summary procedures for recognition and close alignment with international arbitration standards. Construction parties often select these free zone courts as a supportive supervisory and enforcement jurisdiction, particularly for cross border projects involving foreign contractors and lenders.
For employers and contractors, UAE case law highlights several practical imperatives: draft arbitration clauses clearly and ensure proper signatures; keep a disciplined record of notices, claims and procedural steps; select arbitrators with strong technical and legal credentials; and design arbitration procedures that are fair, transparent and aligned with the UAE Arbitration Law. Doing so significantly reduces the risk of annulment and enhances the enforceability of awards in onshore and free zone courts.
UAE case law in construction arbitration continues to mature, offering greater predictability and confidence for parties who rely on arbitration to resolve high value project disputes. Courts now consistently support arbitration agreements, protect procedural fairness and enforce awards in line with international standards. As the UAE remains a major hub for infrastructure and real estate development, staying aligned with these evolving principles is essential for managing risk and achieving durable outcomes in Construction and Projects Disputes.
