In-House Brief: A seasonal wish list that we must all deliver on
Professor Indrawansa Samaratunga
Steven Hunt of C&IDS
That time of year is fast approaching. The diary is filling up with gatherings and receptions, those so inclined drink rather more than is sensible, and the wish lists are drawn up, more in hope than expectation. Yes, it is Dubai Arbitration Week, which last year ran to more than 140 events.¹
For those of us who celebrate Christmas, bitter experience teaches that what is under the tree rarely matches the list sent to Santa. By the same token, does the reality of arbitration fall short of the hype?
Dubai Arbitration Week is, in the end, for the businesses that buy arbitration services: the contractors, developers and employers whose disputes fund the whole enterprise. So this edition of In-House Brief sets out their wish list, drawn from what users have told the surveys, what senior figures in the profession have said this year, and what we see in construction disputes across the GCC.
On the positive side, the GCC has largely fixed the law of arbitration. It may not yet have fixed the experience of it. For a contractor or developer in the region, the burning question is no longer whether an award is likely to be enforced, but whether it was worth the effort and expense of obtaining it.
Already under the tree: enforcement
For much of its history, Dubai Arbitration Week was preoccupied with whether the legal framework itself could be trusted: in 2016, whether arbitrators could face prosecution for their decisions under Article 257 of the UAE Penal Code;² in 2018, the arrival of a new federal arbitration law;³ and from 2021, the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA and the disputes that followed.⁴ Those questions have largely been answered.
Dubai, like much of the GCC, has invested heavily in its arbitration infrastructure, and arbitration is now written into the great majority of construction contracts in the region. The test of whether that investment is paying off has therefore shifted. It is no longer about certainty of outcome under the law, but about the quality of the product itself.
In Saudi Arabia, the SCCA's June 2026 country report analysed 967 court judgments and found that 89.7% of annulment applications were dismissed.⁵ In the UAE, the 2026 civil procedure and arbitration reforms tighten the deadlines for enforcement applications and annulment challenges, and raise the bar for parties that once used serial interlocutory appeals to delay enforcement.⁶
The legal infrastructure, in other words, is no longer the bottleneck. That is a real achievement, and the region's lawmakers, courts and institutions deserve credit for it. It also means the remaining problems sit squarely with the process itself, and with those who run it.
The wish list
Users have been writing much the same list for twenty years. This year, it has five items.
1. An award in good time, at a cost we can predict
The complaint is as old as the surveys. The 2015 Queen Mary survey already ranked cost and delay among arbitration's worst characteristics.⁷ Ten years on, the 2025 survey drew 2,402 respondents, the largest pool yet,⁸ and nearly half still regard arbitration as expensive.⁹ A standard ICC arbitration still takes around 24 months on average,¹⁰ and that is before any challenge or enforcement.
As an earlier In-House Brief, The Changing Face of Construction Disputes, noted, on the ICC's own figures party costs (legal and expert fees combined) account for roughly 83% of the total cost of an arbitration.¹¹
Delay carries its own price. For a contractor, a two to three year process means two to three years of a provision on the balance sheet, a bond at risk and a commercial team distracted from winning the next project.
2. A tribunal that makes decisions
The 2025 survey found that 23% of respondents identified a lack of proactive case management by arbitrators as among the behaviours most damaging to efficiency; among counsel, the figure was 28%. Respondents called for arbitrators to be more “decisive and courageous”, and some complained that arbitrators are simply too busy to be proactive.¹²
The profession has a name for this: due process paranoia, a reluctance by tribunals to act decisively for fear that the award will be challenged because a party was not fully heard.¹³ At London International Disputes Week in June 2026, Lord Neuberger urged arbitrators to take firmer control of case management rather than fixating on due process, warning that arbitration risks losing its advantages,¹⁴ and that cost and delay must be confronted if it is to keep its legitimacy.¹⁵
The irony is that the fear is largely misplaced. Successful due process challenges remain exceptional in the leading jurisdictions,¹⁶ and in the GCC the courts are now dismissing the great majority of annulment applications.
3. A process in proportion to the dispute
Proportionality is not a new idea, and it is already written into the rules. The ICC Rules have long required the tribunal and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration “in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, having regard to the complexity and value of the dispute”.¹⁷ The DIAC Rules go further: arbitrations are to be conducted “justly, fairly, impartially, efficiently and proportionately”, and the tribunal must ensure they are run “expeditiously, diligently and in a cost-effective manner”.¹⁸ In England, section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 has for thirty years required tribunals to adopt procedures suited to the circumstances of the case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense.¹⁹
The ICC's own guidance on controlling time and costs rests on the same principle: procedures in which “time and cost will be proportionate to the needs of the dispute”, with each procedural step tested by asking whether it is worth the time and expense.²⁰ The problem is not the absence of the rule but the habit of overlooking it. A US$5 million variation claim is too often run with the same procedural architecture, and the same size of team, as a US$500 million one.
The evidence suggests that a leaner process works. In the ICC's review of eight years of its expedited procedure, covering 865 cases, there was no document production in 79% of cases, expert reports in only around 5% and no post-hearing briefs in 70%, and the ICC reported no application to set aside an expedited award on due process grounds.²¹ As one recent commentary put it, “when designed properly, expedited arbitration is not a weaker form of arbitration, but a more proportionate one”.²²
A proportionate procedure also needs a proportionate team. Fewer rounds of submissions, limited document production and a single expert per discipline do not need a partner, three associates and a paralegal on every task. Given that legal and expert fees are where most of the money goes, the size of the team is where proportionality is won or lost.
Over-lawyering is the other side of the same coin. The two behaviours most often blamed in the 2025 survey were adversarial approaches by counsel (24%) and over-lawyering (22%), with arbitrators themselves the most critical of over-lawyering, at 35%.²³ Voluminous submissions and excessive document requests were the familiar examples.²⁴
The client and its In-house teams should be honest about their share of this. Many over-lawyered cases are over-lawyered because the client asked for every point to be taken, or did not ask what it would cost to take them.
4. Fast-track options we actually use
Users know what would help. Expedited procedures (50%) and early determination of manifestly unmeritorious claims or defences (49%) were the mechanisms respondents rated most effective in improving efficiency.²⁵
The institutions have responded. The 2026 ICC Rules, in force from 1 June 2026, introduce an early determination mechanism and a new opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration procedure, designed to produce a final award within three months of the first case management conference, regardless of the amount in dispute.²⁶ The threshold for the existing expedited procedure has also risen from US$3 million to US$4 million.²⁷
The catch is that the highly expedited track requires both parties to consent.²⁸ In practice, that consent has to be written into the contract before the dispute arises, because once it has arisen one side will almost always prefer the slower road. Equally telling, only 1% of respondents chose sealed offers, a tool that rewards early and realistic settlement, as a way to improve efficiency.²⁹
5. A quick answer on payment
This is the wish most specific to our region. The most common construction dispute is not a complex delay and disruption claim. It is unpaid money. Arbitration was never designed to resolve an interim payment dispute, yet in most of the GCC it is the only tool available.
The UAE has no statutory adjudication or security of payment regime, unlike the UK, Australia or Singapore.³⁰ Dispute boards appear in FIDIC-based contracts but have traditionally seen limited use.³¹ The UK took the opposite path after the 1994 Latham Report, and statutory 28-day adjudication has made a real difference to the cash flow of contractors and suppliers there.³²
There are encouraging signs. Dubai Law No. (8) of 2025, in force from 1 January 2026, introduces mandatory mediation within 20 days, followed by a decision within 30 days from a committee of one judge and two construction specialists.³³ But it applies only to citizen housing construction contracts below AED 10 million. It recognises the problem; it does not yet reach the commercial projects where the money, and the disputes, are concentrated.
Abu Dhabi has gone further. As we set out in The Case for Adjudication in the GCC,³⁴ the revised Abu Dhabi Government Construction Contract now requires a Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) on government capital projects, arbitrateAD acts as appointing authority for adjudicators and dispute boards, and Sub-Clause 21.7 of the FIDIC 2017 forms allows a failure to comply with a DAAB decision to be taken straight to arbitration without reopening the merits. A DAAB decision is due within 84 days of referral, against a typical 12 to 24 months from request to final award in a moderately complex UAE construction arbitration.
The point of that article bears repeating: enforcement is the wrong test of whether adjudication is worthwhile. Most of its value comes from avoiding disputes, narrowing them, and giving both parties an early and independent view of their prospects. The aim is not to spend less on disputes, but to spend better, while the project is still live.
Does the reality live up to the hype?
In part. Some of the presents are already in the shop: the ICC's three-month track and early determination mechanism, arbitrateAD's role in appointing adjudicators, and Dubai's first, if narrow, legislation for fast construction ADR. The conversation has moved too. This year's Dubai programme includes a panel on due process paranoia in construction arbitration, picking up directly on Lord Neuberger's remarks in London.³⁵
But a present left in the shop is not under the tree. Most of these tools only work if the parties choose them, and they must choose them in the contract, long before anyone is in dispute.
There is a postscript to every wish list, and it is this one: the best present is a dispute that never happens. Much of what is on this list sits within the users' own gift. Contracts can provide for expedited procedures and standing boards. Notices can be served on time. Claims can be assessed honestly in month one rather than month thirty. That work happens inside the business, long before any panel convenes in Dubai.
Enjoy the season. But when the receptions are over, one measure of the success of Dubai Arbitration Week will be whether next year's list is any shorter.
C&IDS (candids.legal) places experienced specialist construction counsel with contractors and developers across the GCC.
This paper will also shortly be published at www.drsamfze.com.
This article is published for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Notes
NYIAC, The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Presents Dubai Arbitration Week (2025).
E Al Tamimi, Changes to UAE Penal Code may Scare Arbitrators away and International Businesses with them, Al Tamimi & Company Law Update (December 2016 to January 2017), first published in Global Arbitration Review, 6 December 2016; see also Gowling WLG, Imprisonment fears allayed in relation to Article 257 of the UAE Penal Code (2018), on the October 2018 amendment removing arbitrators from its scope.
D Al Houti, Dubai Arbitration Week Recap: New Frontiers in Arbitration – The MENA Region, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (December 2018), on UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration.
Allen & Overy, Dubai Government Decree abolishes the DIFC Arbitration Institute (2021); Gowling WLG, Are DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Agreements Valid? (November 2024).
Ashurst, International Arbitration in the Middle East, reporting the SCCA's June 2026 country report.
Global Law Experts, UAE Dispute Resolution Reforms 2026 (2026).
Law.asia, HKIAC, ICC address costs and delays in arbitration, citing the 2015 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey.
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, 2025 International Arbitration Survey: Arbitration and AI (2025).
SCC Online, Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey discussed at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026 (July 2026).
White & Case, Highly Expedited Arbitration under the ICC Rules 2026: A potential new tool to enforce Dispute Adjudication Board decisions? (2026).
S Hunt, In-House Brief: The Changing Face of Construction Disputes: Reforming Arbitration and Harnessing AI, C&IDS, citing ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, Decisions on Costs in International Arbitration (2015).
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, 2025 International Arbitration Survey: Efficiency and effectiveness (2025).
Kluwer Arbitration Blog, Due Process Paranoia, citing the 2015 Queen Mary survey's definition.
Global Arbitration Review, Arbitration losing its advantages over “due process paranoia”, Neuberger tells LIDW (June 2026).
SCC Online, LIDW 2026: Arbitration's Success Must Not Breed Complacency, Says Lord Neuberger (2026).
SCC Online, Is Arbitration Getting Worse or Are Courts Getting More Activist? LIDW26 Panel (2026).
ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration (2nd edn, 2018), Preface, quoting Article 22(1) of the ICC Rules.
Dubai International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules 2022, Articles 17.1 and 17.2; see BCLP, DIAC Rules 2022: Finally Fit for Purpose? (2022).
Arbitration Act 1996, section 33(1); see also section 40 on the parties' corresponding duty.
ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration (2nd edn, 2018), Preface to the First Edition and paragraph 30.
G Esquius Díez, Expedited Arbitration Is Here to Stay: the 2026 ICC Rules and the EPP as a Case Study in Procedural Proportionality, Uría Menéndez, 2026 International Arbitration Outlook, reporting ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, Expedited Procedure Provisions: Eight Years On (29 January 2026).
Esquius Díez, above.
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, 2025 International Arbitration Survey: Efficiency and effectiveness (2025).
Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2025 PAW: Early Insights from the 2025 Queen Mary University of London Arbitration Survey (April 2025).
JD Supra, 2025 International Arbitration Survey (2025).
Cleary Gottlieb, ICC Releases Revised Arbitration Rules, Effective June 1, 2026 (May 2026).
Goodwin, ICC Arbitration Rules Effective June 1, 2026: Key Changes and Practical Takeaways (June 2026).
White & Case, Highly Expedited Arbitration under the ICC Rules 2026: A potential new tool to enforce Dispute Adjudication Board decisions? (2026).
ACICA Review, The Queen Mary University of London 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward, Vol. 13 No. 2.
Neolegal, Construction & Infrastructure (UAE).
Middle East Briefing, Managing Construction Disputes in the United Arab Emirates: A Quick Guide.
BCLP, Is the tide turning for contractors and suppliers in the UAE? (June 2019), citing the Latham Report, Constructing the Team (1994).
S Jordan, Statutory construction ADR comes to Dubai, Gulf Construction (November 2025), on Dubai Law No. (8) of 2025.
I Samaratunga and S Hunt, In-House Brief: The Case for Adjudication in the GCC, C&IDS (30 September 2026).
Clyde & Co, Dubai Arbitration Week 2026, event programme, 9 November 2026.
