The DIFC Mediation Centre – a continued focus on alternative dispute resolution in Dubai’s offshore courts12 November 2025

There is also a more general trend across the UAE of an increased focus on out of court settlement through ADR mechanisms. For example, in the UAE onshore courts, mediation is governed by a specific federal law – ‘Federal Decree Law No. 43 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes’ – which confirms that mediation can be court-ordered at any stage of a case. Similarly, in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) courts, Practice Direction 13 for the ADGM Courts and Part 36 of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules provide for both voluntary and “court-annexed” mediation procedures.

DIFC Mediation Centre – what we know so far

Article 13 of the 2025 DIFC Court Law states that:

“An organisation unit called the “Mediation Centre” shall be established at the DIFC Courts to consider disputes and resolve them amicably. The President shall determine its operational framework, functions and procedures followed therein.”

The Mediation Centre offers parties in DIFC Court proceedings ease of access to a mediation service administered directly by the DIFC Courts. Parties engaged in DIFC Court litigation would benefit from a panel of DIFC-registered mediators made available to them, from which they can select their agreed mediator.

Whilst it remains to be seen how this body will operate in practice given its relatively recent establishment, our understanding is that the Mediation Centre will have the following core features:

• location: the Centre will be based at the DIFC Courts. Mediation sessions can be held in-person at the DIFC Courts or online through a new AI-enabled court management system;
• selection of mediator: parties can choose their mediator and agree on fees and terms in advance of the first session;
• fee structure: an indication of the likely fees of this service is available on the DIFC Courts website (see link). For example, in cases where the claim value exceeds US$5,000,001, the fee for the mediation would be US$13,000 (exclusive of the mediator’s fee) and this would include five mediation sessions, inclusive of one preliminary meeting;
• costs: mediation fees are to be borne by the parties equally; and
• mediator eligibility: guidelines for registration to be added to the panel of mediators is available on the DIFC Courts website (see link), with eligibility requirements including the need for the applicant to have conducted at least ten mediations previously and to have “sufficient knowledge” of the common law system.

The Lord Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts, H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin, previously announced his hope that this new Mediation Centre would “widen the suite of services [of the DIFC Courts], broadening access to justice, as well as providing greater flexibility for business and individuals seeking efficient, cost-effective solutions” (see link).

In practice, therefore, the Mediation Centre looks to be well-designed to offer commercial parties a smooth transition away from traditional court litigation to out of court settlement opportunities, whilst still remaining within the overall structure of the DIFC Courts.

Further alignment with English law?

The establishment of this new ADR body not only significantly expands the present legal offerings of the DIFC Courts but also suggests a closer alignment with the approach taken by the English courts.

The English Court of Appeal’s high-profile decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 (“Churchill”), significantly expanded the powers of the English courts to mandate unwilling parties to engage in ADR. This decision overrode the previous longstanding position in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, in which the courts were historically reluctant to impose mediation upon parties at the risk of infringing upon a party’s right of access to justice and underlying right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

Following Churchill, the position under English law is that courts can order ADR rather than simply encourage it. The English Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) have been updated – the following amendments came into force on 1 October 2024:

• the definition of the “overriding objective” in CPR 1.1(2)(f) has been amended to include “promoting or using ADR”; and
• the courts’ case management powers under CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1 have been expanded to include ordering the parties to “participate in ADR”, as per CPR 3.1(2)(o).

The DIFC Courts are a common law jurisdiction, primarily based on English law and DIFC Court judges have the discretion to look to English precedents in deciding cases.

The recent establishment of a standalone mediation centre as part of the DIFC Courts suggests a strong willingness to encourage parties to use ADR.

Given the above case law developments, we may perhaps see the DIFC Courts increasingly making orders for ADR under RDC 26.40 to 26.44 and Part 27, when exercising their case management powers. The DIFC Courts are empowered to issue specific orders for ADR of their own volition or they may invite parties to use ADR if it appears appropriate for their case. This may involve adjourning the case for a defined period of time to allow the parties sufficient opportunity to use ADR.