Understanding the Impact of Decree No. 34 of 2021
When Dubai issued Decree No. 34 of 2021, it formally abolished the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre and the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC), consolidating their roles into the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). This reform aimed to streamline Dubai’s arbitration landscape, but it also raised a critical question: What happens to existing arbitration agreements that refer to the DIFC-LCIA Rules?
Legal Effect of Decree No. 34/2021
- Article 6(a) of the Decree guarantees that arbitration agreements naming the DIFC-LCIA or EMAC remain “valid and effective.” DIAC is mandated to administer such disputes unless the parties agree otherwise.
- Article 8(c) clarifies that the DIFC-LCIA Rules are replaced by the 2022 DIAC Rules for these proceedings.
In essence, while the institution no longer exists, the agreements themselves continue to stand — their administration simply transitions to DIAC.
Diverging Judicial Interpretations
Four notable court decisions from the UAE, Singapore, and the United States illustrate the evolving international approach to post-DIFC-LCIA disputes.
1. Abu Dhabi Courts (Case No. 1046/2023)
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal upheld the validity of a DIFC-LCIA clause, holding that the closure of the institution does not invalidate the agreement. The courts recognized that Decree No. 34 expressly authorizes DIAC to step in.
2. DIFC Courts (ARB-009/2024)
Justice Black KC affirmed that Decree No. 34 forms part of DIFC law, rendering such clauses enforceable. The Court granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain parallel proceedings, reinforcing party autonomy and the pro-arbitration stance of the DIFC judiciary.
3. Singapore Courts ( [2024] SGHC 71)
While the Court acknowledged that the parties had selected DIFC-LCIA Rules, it ultimately enforced an award conducted under DIAC because the respondent had participated in the proceedings without timely objection. The Court of Appeal upheld this pragmatic approach.
4. U.S. Courts (No. 2:23-cv-01396; 5th Cir. No. 23-30827)
Initially, the Louisiana District Court refused to compel arbitration, treating the clause as a forum-selection agreement rendered void by the institution’s dissolution. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed this decision (Jan 2025), finding that the reference to the DIFC-LCIA Rules was a procedural choice, not an exclusive forum, and remanded the case for reconsideration consistent with the parties’ intent to arbitrate.
Key Takeaways
- Arbitration clauses referencing the DIFC-LCIA remain valid under UAE law.
- DIAC now acts as the successor institution, applying its 2022 Rules unless the parties agree otherwise.
- International enforcement depends on the governing law and jurisdictional interpretation — with courts increasingly favoring substance over form to uphold party intent.
Decree No. 34 has therefore not invalidated legacy DIFC-LCIA clauses but has, instead, redefined their procedural administration, reinforcing Dubai’s position as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.
The UAE’s arbitration reforms continue to reshape how cross-border disputes are managed. To discuss what these developments mean for your contracts and enforcement strategy, connect with the author Merline Dsouza at merline@alsuwaidi.ae.