Ravi P. Jawani May 7, 2026May 7, 2026 The Emirate of Dubai operates two legally distinct court systems: the onshore Dubai Courts, constituted under UAE federal and local law, and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (“DIFC Courts”), which administer a common-law framework within the DIFC’s autonomous legal jurisdiction. While this dual-court architecture has been a powerful draw for international commerce, it has simultaneously generated enduring uncertainty over which judicial system governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, particularly when competing proceedings are commenced before both forums simultaneously. On 20 April 2026, Dubai’s Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal (the “CJT”) issued a landmark ruling in Application No. 01/2026 (the “Judgment”), drawing a clear and principled line between two legally distinct stages that routinely arise in arbitral enforcement proceedings: recognition (or ratification) on the one hand, and compulsory enforcement on the other. In resolving a positive conflict of jurisdiction that emerged when the same foreign arbitral award became the subject of simultaneous proceedings before both courts, the Judgment offers authoritative guidance on an issue that has long vexed practitioners navigating Dubai’s bifurcated judicial landscape. This article examines the CJT’s reasoning, the legal framework applied, and the practical implications for parties seeking to enforce foreign arbitral awards within the Emirate. Key Facts The Award Holder sought recognition and enforcement of a Singapore-seated arbitral award (the “Arbitral Award”) before the DIFC Courts, relying principally on Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law of 2008 (the “DIFC Arbitration Law”) and Article 14(A)(5) of DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 (the “DIFC Courts Law”). The Award Debtor was a mainland Dubai entity with no connection to the DIFC. The DIFC Courts granted recognition and enforcement of the Arbitral Award. The Award Debtor challenged that order and, in a parallel manoeuvre, filed proceedings before the onshore Dubai Courts seeking annulment of the same Arbitral Award. While both sets of proceedings remained live, the Award Debtor approached the CJT requesting a determination that the Dubai Mainland Courts were the competent authority to adjudicate on the recognition and enforcement of the Arbitral Award, and seeking a suspension of proceedings before the DIFC Courts pending that determination. The Challenge Before the CJT The Award Debtor contended that a positive conflict of jurisdiction had arisen given that the proceedings before both courts concerned the identical Arbitral Award, the identical parties, and the identical legal foundation. In support of its submission that the Dubai Courts were the appropriate forum, the Award Debtor emphasised that, as a mainland entity, it fell squarely within the territorial jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts. The Award Holder countered that the DIFC Courts possessed a well-established conduit jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Article 14(A)(5) of the DIFC Courts Law, and that this jurisdiction was not conditioned upon any nexus between the parties or the award and the DIFC. The DIFC Courts had already issued a recognition and enforcement order on that basis, which remained in force. The CJT’s Findings The CJT authoritatively rejected the Award Debtor’s application and issued the following findings: Universal recognition jurisdiction – no DIFC nexus required: Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Article 14(A)(5) of the DIFC Courts Law collectively establish that recognition and enforcement proceedings before the DIFC Courts are agnostic as to the seat of the arbitration, the governing law of the underlying contract, the domicile of the parties, and the location of assets. No prior connection to the DIFC is required for the DIFC Courts to assume recognition jurisdiction. Alignment with the New York Convention: The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards obliges all contracting states to recognise arbitral awards as binding and to enforce them in accordance with local procedural rules, without imposing conditions more onerous than those applicable to domestic awards. Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law is fully aligned with this framework. Article 14(A)(7) of the DIFC Courts Law further extends the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction to matters arising under international treaties and conventions to which the UAE is a party, reinforcing the breadth of this mandate. The recognition/enforcement and execution divide: There is a material and legally significant distinction between recognition/enforcement proceedings and execution proceedings. Since the Award Debtor has no presence, assets, or connection within the DIFC, compulsory execution falls to be conducted by the Dubai Courts under the prescribed legal framework. Article 32 of the DIFC Courts Law specifically provides for the DIFC Courts to issue a judicial deputation to the Dubai Courts’ Enforcement Judge where enforcement is to be carried out outside the DIFC. Dubai Courts lack jurisdiction over recognition, enforcement, and annulment: Given that the arbitration was governed by English law and seated in Singapore, and that the parties had not agreed to subject the proceedings to UAE Federal Arbitration Law, the Dubai Courts have no jurisdictional basis to hear recognition, enforcement, or annulment of the Arbitral Award. Bifurcated jurisdictional allocation: Jurisdiction over recognition and enforcement proceedings vests in the DIFC Courts; jurisdiction over execution proceedings vests in the Dubai Courts, in the circumstances of this matter. Takeaway The CJT’s ruling reinforces Dubai’s position as a sophisticated and commercially dependable seat for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It affirms that parties holding a foreign award retain the option of invoking the DIFC Courts’ conduit jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement (regardless of any absence of DIFC nexus) while also confirming that the Dubai Courts remain the competent authority for execution against assets or entities situated outside the DIFC. The determination of execution jurisdiction turns on the domicile, presence, or location of assets of the judgment debtor, not on where recognition was originally obtained. This decision is likely to serve as a meaningful deterrent against dilatory tactics by award debtors who seek to frustrate enforcement by initiating parallel proceedings before multiple forums. By drawing a clear boundary around each court’s role, the CJT has removed one of the most potent tools available to obstructive respondents. The CJT’s analysis of the DIFC Courts’ recognition jurisdiction sits in alignment with the DIFC Courts’ Court of First Instance decision in Om v. Ottilie (ARB 017/2025, judgment dated 28 October 2025), in which the DIFC Courts confirmed that neither domicile, business activity, nor the presence of assets within the DIFC are statutory pre-conditions for the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Our analysis of that decision may be accessed [https://fichtelegal.com/difc-courts-confirm-no-difc-nexus-is-required-for-recognition-of-foreign-arbitral-awards/]. About the Authors Fichte & Co’s Partner Ravi Jawani and his team successfully represented the Respondent/Award Holders in this matter, further cementing the DIFC’s standing as the pre-eminent conduit for the enforcement of foreign awards in the region. Ravi Jawani also acted for the successful Award Holder in Om v. Ottilie (ARB 017/2025, judgment dated 28 October 2025).
