Abstract
Federal Decree-Law No. 15 of 2023 amended the Federal Arbitration Law for the first time since 2018. It is a short amendment that touches four articles and adds one, and most UAE arbitration content still describes the law as it stood before it. Practical UAE-law guidance from Noura Lawyers. The analysis draws on UAE federal legislation, applicable free-zone law (DIFC/ADGM where relevant), and current Arbitration practice as observed across the Noura Almaazmi caseload. 4 core practitioner questions are examined. Key findings address: Which provisions did it change, and What changed about who can sit as arbitrator, presented through the lens of a practical guide. The article equips UAE-based practitioners, in-house counsel, and international clients with UAE exposure with a decision-ready analytical framework grounded in current law.
Keywords: UAE law, arbitration, the 2023 amendments to the, UAE legal practitioners, UAE courts 2026
Introduction
Federal Decree-Law No. 15 of 2023 amended the Federal Arbitration Law for the first time since 2018. It is a short amendment that touches four articles and adds one, and most UAE arbitration content still describes the law as it stood before it. Practical UAE-law guidance from Noura Lawyers.
The guide below is structured for a practitioner reading it cold — the framing is procedural and decision-oriented, with the answers calibrated to current UAE practice rather than theoretical doctrine.
This is one of the recurring topics we field at the firm, and the notes below summarise the practitioner-level approach we take when partners are asked to advise on it.
Conclusion
This article has examined which provisions did it change, what changed about who can sit as arbitrator within the framework of The 2023 amendments to the UAE Arbitration Law — what actually changed in UAE practice. Effective navigation of these issues depends not on any single legal argument, but on the quality of upfront procedural decisions, evidentiary discipline, and a clear understanding of which UAE forum and governing law apply to each element of the matter.
The UAE legal landscape continues to evolve. Significant reform across commercial companies law, civil procedure, free-zone regulation, and personal status has reshaped practice since 2021. Readers are advised to verify the current state of any legislation or regulation cited here. This analysis reflects the law as at 04 November 2026.
For matter-specific advice, contact the Noura Almaazmi team. A qualified practitioner will assess your specific facts, confirm the applicable forum and governing law, and deliver a scoped engagement recommendation within one working day of intake.
References
- UAE Civil Transactions Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025)
- UAE Commercial Transactions Law (Federal Law No. 18 of 1993)
- Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (UAE Civil Procedure Code)
Practical checklist
- Establish the procedural geometry up-front: which UAE forum has jurisdiction, what governing law applies, and what the limitation/notice clock looks like.
- Document the contemporaneous record — correspondence, notices, payment trails, registry searches — before substantive work starts. Evidentiary discipline pays compound returns.
- Map dependencies on third parties (regulators, counterparties, banks, registries) and lock in realistic lead-times for each.
- Identify the cross-border interface early. Pure-onshore matters are rarer than they look; most Arbitration work has at least one foreign-domiciled party, foreign-law document or foreign-asset element.
- Stage the workstream in 30 / 60 / 90-day blocks with explicit decision points. Linear plans without decision points drift; gated plans deliver.
- Pre-position the enforcement strategy at the structuring or filing stage — not after judgement. The enforcement choices available are determined by the choices made up-front.
Advisory note
On arbitration matters of this type, our default position is to compress the diagnostic phase and move quickly to a written position — typically within 5-10 working days of intake. The diagnostic captures the procedural geometry, the documentary record, the limitation calendar and the practical objectives of the client. From there, the engagement either proceeds on a fixed-fee scoped basis (where the path is clear) or under a more flexible arrangement (where significant unknowns remain — for example pending regulator correspondence or counterparty positioning that materially changes the workplan). Either way, the goal is to give the client a decision-quality view at the earliest practical moment, rather than running an open-ended discovery phase that can erode both budget and momentum.
Frequently asked questions
Which provisions did it change?
Federal Decree-Law No. 15 of 2023, dated 4 September 2023, amended Articles 10, 23, 28 and 33 of Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 and introduced a new Article 10 bis. Everything else in the 2018 law stands. Check the commencement date against the Official Gazette before relying on it for a transitional question: the decree is dated 4 September 2023 and published commentary splits between 16 and 29 September 2023 for entry into force.
In practice, the answer above usually drives a follow-on question about timing, cost or downstream procedural steps. Our standard approach is to walk the client through the next 30 / 60 / 90 days of workflow, flagging where decisions need to be taken and where external dependencies (regulators, counterparties, court calendars) sit in the critical path. Arbitration matters in particular reward early sequencing work — the procedural choices made in the first two weeks tend to shape the outcome more than any single substantive argument made later.
Where the matter sits at the intersection of UAE-onshore process and a free-zone or foreign element, we run a parallel workstream addressing the cross-border interface — service of process, governing-law election, choice of forum, treaty reciprocity, and (where relevant) sanctions or compliance overlays. Most of the procedural failures we see in this topic area trace back to one of those cross-border seams being underestimated at the structuring stage.
What changed about who can sit as arbitrator?
Article 10 now requires that the arbitrator have no direct connection with the parties that would compromise impartiality, integrity or independence. The former flat prohibition on appointing a person who sits on the governing or administrative body of the arbitral institution has been relaxed into an exception, available subject to safeguards including a specific governance system and a secure reporting mechanism. A wholly new Article 10 bis sits alongside it.
In practice, the answer above usually drives a follow-on question about timing, cost or downstream procedural steps. Our standard approach is to walk the client through the next 30 / 60 / 90 days of workflow, flagging where decisions need to be taken and where external dependencies (regulators, counterparties, court calendars) sit in the critical path. Arbitration matters in particular reward early sequencing work — the procedural choices made in the first two weeks tend to shape the outcome more than any single substantive argument made later.
Where the matter sits at the intersection of UAE-onshore process and a free-zone or foreign element, we run a parallel workstream addressing the cross-border interface — service of process, governing-law election, choice of forum, treaty reciprocity, and (where relevant) sanctions or compliance overlays. Most of the procedural failures we see in this topic area trace back to one of those cross-border seams being underestimated at the structuring stage.
What changed about procedure and institutional rules?
Article 23 confirms that the parties may agree the tribunal's procedure, including by subjecting it to the rules of an arbitral institution, and the cross-reference to the former Article 10(2) restriction was removed. The effect is to give institutional rules a cleaner footing in a UAE-seated arbitration.
In practice, the answer above usually drives a follow-on question about timing, cost or downstream procedural steps. Our standard approach is to walk the client through the next 30 / 60 / 90 days of workflow, flagging where decisions need to be taken and where external dependencies (regulators, counterparties, court calendars) sit in the critical path. Arbitration matters in particular reward early sequencing work — the procedural choices made in the first two weeks tend to shape the outcome more than any single substantive argument made later.
Where the matter sits at the intersection of UAE-onshore process and a free-zone or foreign element, we run a parallel workstream addressing the cross-border interface — service of process, governing-law election, choice of forum, treaty reciprocity, and (where relevant) sanctions or compliance overlays. Most of the procedural failures we see in this topic area trace back to one of those cross-border seams being underestimated at the structuring stage.
What changed about hearings and evidence?
Article 28 now allows the parties to agree that proceedings are held physically or virtually, and places an obligation on institutions to provide the technology needed for remote hearings to the applicable UAE standards. Article 33 was replaced: it introduces a requirement for documentary proof of authority at Article 33(4), and the former Article 33(3) dealing with hearings by modern means of communication was abrogated, that ground now being covered by Article 28.
In practice, the answer above usually drives a follow-on question about timing, cost or downstream procedural steps. Our standard approach is to walk the client through the next 30 / 60 / 90 days of workflow, flagging where decisions need to be taken and where external dependencies (regulators, counterparties, court calendars) sit in the critical path. Arbitration matters in particular reward early sequencing work — the procedural choices made in the first two weeks tend to shape the outcome more than any single substantive argument made later.
Where the matter sits at the intersection of UAE-onshore process and a free-zone or foreign element, we run a parallel workstream addressing the cross-border interface — service of process, governing-law election, choice of forum, treaty reciprocity, and (where relevant) sanctions or compliance overlays. Most of the procedural failures we see in this topic area trace back to one of those cross-border seams being underestimated at the structuring stage.
Related guides in the library
Published 04 November 2026 · Last reviewed 4 November 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.