Litigation and dispute resolution in the DIFC and ADGM Courts

You can if the dispute falls within the court's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction arises in four main ways: one of the parties is established or licensed in the financial centre; the dispute concerns a transaction or contract performed in it; the claim relates to a body or authority of the centre; or the parties have agreed in writing to submit to the court, which they may do even where nothing else connects them to the DIFC or ADGM.

That last route, known as opt-in jurisdiction, is why parties with no presence in either centre still litigate there. A well-drafted jurisdiction clause is usually enough. We review the contract, assess whether jurisdiction is arguable or secure, and tell you the risk of a challenge before you spend anything on the claim itself, because a jurisdiction fight lost at the outset is the most expensive way to begin.

Yes. A DIFC or ADGM judgment is enforced onshore through the recognised referral process to the Dubai or Abu Dhabi execution courts, which enforce it without reopening the merits. Enforcement in the other emirates follows the federal framework for judgments issued within the UAE.

Internationally, both courts have memoranda of understanding and guidance with a number of foreign courts, and their judgments are treated as money judgments of a common-law court in many jurisdictions. Both centres are also conduit jurisdictions: a foreign judgment or arbitral award can be recognised there and then referred onshore for execution.

None of this helps if the defendant has moved the money first. We plan enforcement before the claim is issued, which usually means identifying assets, considering a freezing order, and choosing the forum that reaches those assets most directly.

Conflicts between the DIFC and onshore Dubai courts do arise, most often where a contract is ambiguous about forum or where one party issues proceedings in each. Where there is a genuine conflict, jurisdiction is determined by the Conflict of Jurisdiction Tribunal established by Dubai Decree No. 29 of 2024, and its decision binds both courts.

Where that risk exists, speed matters. The party that moves first, in the right forum, with a properly reasoned jurisdiction case, usually shapes the whole dispute. We advise on forum before anything is filed, and where a parallel claim has already been brought against you onshore we act quickly to establish jurisdiction rather than allowing the issue to drift.

Both are English-language common-law courts sitting inside the UAE, independent of the onshore system, with judges drawn from common-law jurisdictions. Both hear civil and commercial disputes, both have a Court of First Instance and a Court of Appeal, and both operate a small claims tribunal for lower-value matters.

The difference lies in the applicable law. DIFC law is a body of statutes enacted for the centre, supplemented by DIFC case law. ADGM took a different approach: the law of England and Wales, including the common law and rules of equity, applies directly in ADGM as it stands from time to time, subject to ADGM's own regulations. In practice ADGM is closer to litigating in London, while the DIFC has a longer track record, a larger body of its own case law and a higher volume of filings. The right forum for a new contract usually depends on where the parties and assets are, not on a preference between the two.

No. Parties with no presence in either centre regularly litigate there by agreeing to opt in to the court's jurisdiction. That agreement is usually recorded in the contract's jurisdiction clause, and it can also be made after a dispute has arisen if both sides consent in writing.

This is one of the main reasons the courts are used. Parties from different countries choose a neutral, English-language common-law forum with judges they recognise, sitting in the UAE where the assets or the counterparty are. If you are negotiating a contract now, this is the moment to settle it: adding a clear DIFC or ADGM jurisdiction clause costs nothing today and is far cheaper than arguing about forum later.

Proceedings in both courts are conducted in English. Pleadings, evidence, hearings and judgments are all in English, and documents in other languages are filed with a translation. There is no requirement to translate the case into Arabic, which is a significant saving in both cost and time compared with onshore litigation.

Rights of audience are held by registered practitioners rather than by UAE-qualified advocates, and lawyers qualified in common-law jurisdictions appear regularly before both courts. Where a matter later requires enforcement onshore, that step is handled through the local execution court, and we work with licensed local advocates for anything requiring rights of audience before the onshore courts.

Timing depends on the track. A small claims matter is designed to be resolved within a few months. A defended claim in the Court of First Instance typically runs between nine and eighteen months to trial, depending on complexity, the number of parties and whether there are interlocutory applications. Summary judgment, where the defence has no real prospect of success, can end a case in a matter of months.

Costs fall into court fees, which are calculated by reference to the value of the claim, and legal fees. Both courts follow the common-law principle that costs follow the event, so a successful party ordinarily recovers a proportion of its costs from the losing side, and in some cases indemnity costs. We give a stage-by-stage estimate at the outset and tell you what is realistically recoverable, because a claim that costs more to run than it can recover is not worth bringing.

Yes. Both courts have the full range of common-law interim remedies: freezing orders over assets, search and disclosure orders, interim injunctions, and orders to preserve evidence. Applications can be made urgently, and where notice would defeat the purpose they can be made without notice to the other side.

These applications carry obligations. An applicant must give full and frank disclosure of anything relevant, including matters that hurt its own case, and will usually be required to give an undertaking in damages. Speed is decisive: relief is most effective before the counterparty knows a claim is coming. If you believe assets are about to be moved, the time to take advice is that day, not after the transfer.

Yes. Both are common-law courts within the UAE and both function as conduit jurisdictions. A foreign money judgment can be recognised and enforced there under the applicable rules, and arbitral awards are enforced under the New York Convention, to which the UAE is a party.

Once recognised, the judgment or award becomes an order of the DIFC or ADGM court and can then be referred onshore for execution against assets in Dubai, Abu Dhabi or elsewhere in the UAE. This route is regularly used by foreign claimants pursuing a debtor whose assets are held in the UAE. We advise on whether it is available on your facts and on the practical steps for locating and reaching the assets.

Each has a place. Litigation before either court gives you a public, reasoned judgment, a right of appeal, and the full range of interim remedies, and it is generally faster and cheaper than arbitration for straightforward debt and contract claims. Arbitration gives confidentiality, a tribunal chosen by the parties, and the widest international enforcement network under the New York Convention.

The choice usually turns on where the counterparty's assets are, how important confidentiality is, and whether you expect to need urgent relief. What matters most is that the clause is unambiguous and consistent with the rest of the contract: hybrid and poorly drafted clauses are the most common cause of satellite litigation about forum. We draft and review dispute resolution clauses with enforcement in mind, so the clause works when it is finally needed.