What this guide covers
Virtual and hybrid hearings are now standard in UAE international arbitration — accelerated by the 2020 pandemic and entrenched as permanent practice. All major UAE and Singapore institutions support remote proceedings. Effective virtual hearing management requires advance technology planning, adapted examination techniques, and clear procedural protocols.
Approved platforms and technology requirements
UAE arbitral institutions accept virtual hearings conducted on commercially available secure platforms. Commonly used platforms: (i) Opus2: purpose-built litigation platform with built-in document review, simultaneous interpretation, and recording — preferred for complex multi-day hearings; (ii) Microsoft Teams: widely used for CMCs and shorter procedural hearings; (iii) Zoom: widely used but less preferred for full evidentiary hearings due to security and recording concerns; (iv) Relativity Zoom Integration: allows document review and examination on a single platform — efficient for document-intensive cross-examination. The platform should be agreed between the parties and approved by the tribunal at the CMC — do not assume the default platform is acceptable.
Minimum technical requirements for witnesses in virtual hearings: a reliable high-speed internet connection (minimum 100 Mbps download/upload); HD-quality webcam; noise-cancelling headset; neutral, stable background without distraction; second device for document review so the witness is not scrolling through the same screen they are being viewed on.
Time zone management for UAE proceedings
UAE (UAE Standard Time, UTC+4) is 4 hours ahead of GMT and 1 hour ahead of IST. Common hearing configurations from UAE: Dubai time 10:00 = London time 06:00 (summer: 07:00); Singapore time 14:00 = Dubai time 10:00; New York time 01:00 (EDT) = Dubai time 10:00. For hearings involving London-based witnesses or counsel, morning UAE hearings (8:00–9:00 GST) correspond to 4:00–5:00 UK time — impractical. Schedule UAE-London hearings for UAE afternoon (14:00 GST = 10:00 BST). For Singapore-UAE hearings, overlap is good: UAE 10:00 = Singapore 14:00. Build a time zone conversion table into the procedural timetable and share with all participants.
Document presentation and evidence in virtual hearings
Document presentation in virtual hearings requires advance preparation that physical hearings do not. All documents must be in a shared digital bundle agreed by the parties before the hearing. Best practice: prepare a digital hearing bundle (Opus2 or similar) that all participants can access simultaneously; number all pages sequentially; agree a page-reference protocol (e.g., "please turn to PDF page 345, document C-72"); test document access for each participant before the hearing. Physical production of documents at the hearing is impractical in a virtual setting — all cross-examination must be based on pre-agreed digital documents.
For the examination of witnesses: the witness must confirm at the start of each session that they are alone in the room (no coaching); the camera must show their face and a sufficient portion of the background to confirm no one is assisting; documents shown to witnesses must be the same as those accessible to all parties and the tribunal simultaneously — no out-of-bundle documents in virtual settings.
Practical checklist
- Platform agreement: agree platform at first CMC — do not leave to the hearing day
- Technology test: conduct a full technology test 48 hours before each hearing session with all participants (tribunal, counsel, witnesses, interpreters)
- Digital bundle: complete digital hearing bundle 7 days before the hearing — last-minute bundle amendments cause delays
- Interpreters: confirm interpreter availability and platform compatibility in advance — simultaneous interpretation on virtual platforms has specific technical requirements
- Backup plan: agree a backup procedure for connectivity failure (e.g., 15-minute adjournment, then dial-in telephone for audio-only proceedings)
- Witness coaching prevention: the tribunal may require witnesses to confirm before examination that they are unaccompanied and have no remote assistance devices visible
What we'd typically advise
Virtual hearings work well for CMCs, interim measures applications, and shorter procedural hearings. For full evidentiary hearings with multiple witnesses over 5+ days, a hybrid approach (tribunal and counsel physically present in a single location; witnesses appearing remotely) often produces better results than a fully virtual hearing — it preserves the dynamic of in-person advocacy while accommodating remote witnesses. Plan the hearing format early and discuss with the tribunal at the first CMC.
Frequently asked questions
Can a party refuse to participate in a virtual hearing?
A party can object to a fully virtual hearing and request an in-person hearing, but the tribunal has discretion to order the format of the proceedings. Arbitral tribunals have consistently upheld their power to order virtual proceedings where in-person hearings would be unduly costly or impractical. A party that refuses to participate in a tribunal-ordered virtual hearing may face adverse procedural consequences.
Are virtual hearing recordings admissible in UAE court enforcement proceedings?
A recording of the virtual hearing is part of the arbitration record. Whether it is separately submitted in enforcement proceedings depends on the enforcement application — normally the award and the arbitration agreement are the key documents for enforcement, not hearing recordings. However, recordings may be relevant in set-aside proceedings challenging procedural fairness.
What if a witness in a virtual hearing appears to be reading from notes?
The tribunal or opposing counsel may ask the witness to confirm they are testifying from their own recollection and not reading from prepared notes. If a witness appears to be reading, this is a serious credibility issue. The tribunal may order the witness to move the camera to confirm no documents are visible, or may draw adverse inferences from the apparent note-reading.
Does arbitrateAD's Art 29 cybersecurity protocol apply to virtual hearings?
Yes. The cybersecurity protocol under Art 29 covers hearing platforms and electronic communications. The agreed protocol should specify which platform will be used, security settings (e.g., password-protected meeting, waiting room enabled, no recording without consent), and data storage of the hearing recording.
Can simultaneous interpretation be conducted on Zoom or Teams?
Yes, but with limitations. Both Zoom and Teams have built-in simultaneous interpretation features (separate audio channels). For professional simultaneous interpretation of hearing proceedings, Opus2 or a dedicated interpretation platform (Interprefy, Kudo) provides better quality and more channels. For CMCs with basic interpretation needs, Zoom's built-in feature is adequate.
Related guides
Published 20 May 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.