Knowledge Hub · Disputes · Litigation
20 practitioner questions on the ADGM Courts, with side-by-side answers across ADGM, DIFC, onshore UAE and international standards. Every answer cites primary sources only — no commercial-publisher content reused.
An independent English-language common-law court system established under Federal Decree 15 of 2013 and Abu Dhabi Law 4 of 2013 (the ADGM Founding Law). Two tiers: Court of First Instance (Civil and Commercial Divisions) and Court of Appeal. Jurisdiction: (i) civil and commercial matters within ADGM; (ii) ADGM-incorporated entities; (iii) opt-in by written agreement; (iv) FSRA enforcement appeals through the Regulatory Committee.
Source: Abu Dhabi Law 4/2013 Articles 13-14; Federal Decree 15/2013The DIFC Courts (CFI + Court of Appeal + Small Claims Tribunal) operate under DIFC Law 12/2004 and apply DIFC's own statutory regime + English common law as residual. Functionally comparable common-law jurisdiction within UAE federal territory.
Source: DIFC Law 12/2004; Dubai Law 16/2011Federal court system + emirate courts apply UAE federal civil and commercial law in Arabic. Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 governs procedure. Onshore courts have jurisdiction over claims with nexus to UAE federal territory based on defendant domicile, place of contract performance, or place of obligation.
Source: Federal Constitution; Civil Procedure Law 42/2022The ADGM model is closest to the Singapore International Commercial Court (2015), Astana International Financial Centre Court (2018), and Hong Kong Court of First Instance (commercial list). Together with DIFC, ADGM forms one of two onshore-and-fenced English-language common-law jurisdictions in the GCC.
Source: Singapore International Commercial Court Practice Directions; AIFC Court RegulationsThe ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015 directly apply English common law and equity, plus a Schedule 1 list of English statutes — as in force from time to time, with limited modifications. Examples include the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Misrepresentation Act 1967, and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. ADGM judges apply these directly without needing to import them through a UAE statutory bridge.
Source: ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015 ss1-2 + Schedule 1DIFC does not directly apply English law. DIFC enacts its own statutes (Companies Law DIFC Law 5/2018, Contract Law DIFC Law 6/2004, Law of Obligations DIFC Law 5/2005) modelled on English law but as standalone legislation. English common law is applied only as a gap-filler when DIFC statutes are silent (DIFC Law 3/2004 Article 8(2)(e)).
Source: DIFC Law 3/2004 Article 8(2)(e)Onshore courts apply UAE Civil Code (Federal Law 5/1985), Commercial Code (FL 18/1993), Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 and other federal statutes — civilian legal system rooted in Egyptian and French models. English law has no direct application; foreign law can be pleaded and proved as fact only.
Source: UAE Civil Code (FL 5/1985); UAE Commercial Code (FL 18/1993)ADGM's direct application of English law is unusual — most other "common-law islands" in civil-law countries (DIFC, AIFC Astana) use a transposed-statute model. The closest comparators are Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands, both of which apply English law directly subject to local modifications. The "as in force from time to time" formula creates a living link to UK statutory development.
Source: Gibraltar English Law (Application) Act; Cayman ELR Law 1995(i) Direct English-law application via Regulations 2015 (DIFC: own statutes); (ii) Companies Regulations 2020 derived directly from UK Companies Act 2006 (DIFC: own Companies Law); (iii) FSRA appellate route (DIFC: DFSA route via Financial Markets Tribunal); (iv) Foundations Regulations 2017 — common foreign-fiduciary structure (DIFC: own Foundations Law DIFC Law 3/2018); (v) ADGM has Tech Start-up licensing tier; (vi) ADGM has its own Insolvency Regulations 2022 modelled on UK Insolvency Act 1986 (DIFC: DIFC Insolvency Law DIFC Law 1/2019).
Source: ADGM Companies Regulations 2020; ADGM Foundations Regulations 2017; ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2022DIFC operates a Practical-Law-style transposed-statute model: every key area has its own DIFC statute (Contract Law, Companies Law, Insolvency Law, Foundations Law, Data Protection Law). English common law is gap-filler. DIFC has been operating since 2004 (10+ years longer than ADGM) so case-law volume is materially deeper. Both are now in active use by sophisticated parties.
Source: DIFC Law catalogue (DIFC.ae)Neither ADGM nor DIFC supersedes onshore UAE for matters with a UAE-territorial nexus — onshore courts retain jurisdiction over land registered with DLD/ADREC, employment of mainland employees, criminal matters, family law, and matters not within ADGM/DIFC opt-in scope.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022ADGM and DIFC are now competing peers — practitioners select between them based on the specific area (e.g. fund structuring may favour DIFC for fund-management depth; ADGM for English-law-direct contract questions; DIFC for case-law density). Singapore's SIFC is a closer comparator to DIFC; Hong Kong's commercial list is closer to ADGM's English-direct approach.
Source: Singapore SICC Practice Directions; HK High Court Commercial ListArticle 13(6) of the ADGM Founding Law (Abu Dhabi Law 4/2013) permits any two parties — regardless of UAE nexus — to confer jurisdiction on the ADGM Courts by written agreement. The clause must be unambiguous; functional language ("any disputes arising out of this agreement shall be referred to the ADGM Courts") suffices. This mirrors DIFC's opt-in mechanism.
Source: Abu Dhabi Law 4/2013 Article 13(6)Article 5(A)(2) of Dubai Law 12/2004 (as amended by Law 16/2011). Functionally identical opt-in mechanism. DIFC's longer operational history means more case-law on opt-in clause interpretation, including on ambiguous "Dubai Courts" references.
Source: Dubai Law 16/2011 amending Law 12/2004 Article 5(A)(2)Onshore courts have territorial jurisdiction by reference to defendant domicile, place of contract performance, place of obligation arising etc. under Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 19-25. Pure opt-in (without underlying jurisdictional nexus) is not generally available.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 19-25Both ADGM and DIFC opt-in jurisdiction track Article 25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation (EU 1215/2012) and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. The UAE is not a Hague 2005 contracting state, but ADGM/DIFC opt-in clauses are now commonly upheld globally.
Source: Recast Brussels Regulation Article 25; Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005Yes — under Federal Decree 15/2013 Article 8, ADGM Court judgments are recognised and enforceable as if they were judgments of the federal courts. The Memorandum of Understanding between ADGM Courts and Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (2018) operationalises the route: ADGM judgment + execution application to the ADJD enforcement department, no re-litigation on the merits.
Source: Federal Decree 15/2013 Article 8; ADGM Courts & ADJD MOU (2018)DIFC has the longer-established 2009 MOU with Dubai Courts (extended by Decree 28/2018) — the well-known "conduit enforcement" route. ADGM-onshore enforcement is now equally fluid via the 2018 ADGM-ADJD MOU; some commercial parties use ADGM as the seat for that reason where the dispute is closer to Abu Dhabi.
Source: Dubai Decree 28/2018; ADGM-ADJD MOU 2018Onshore execution of ADGM (and DIFC) judgments runs through the local execution department under Civil Procedure Law 42/2022. The court does not re-examine the merits — it executes the financial-centre court's order on assets onshore (bank accounts, property, shares).
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022ADGM judgment enforcement abroad benefits from the UAE's GCC enforcement convention (1996) for GCC states, the Riyadh Arab Convention 1983 for Arab League states, and the bilateral conventions with India (1999), France, China, etc. Common-law-court status helps with recognition under common-law reciprocity in jurisdictions like Singapore, England (post-Brexit), and Hong Kong.
Source: GCC Convention on Reciprocal Enforcement 1996; Riyadh Arab Convention 1983Two-tier: Court of First Instance → Court of Appeal. Permission to appeal is required (Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rule 215) and granted only where there is a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason. There is no further onshore appeal — the Court of Appeal is the apex on ADGM matters. FSRA matters: Regulatory Committee → Court of Appeal on points of law.
Source: ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rules 213-220Similar two-tier: CFI → Court of Appeal. Permission required. Small Claims Tribunal appeals (where leave granted) go to a CFI judge sitting alone. The DIFC Court of Appeal is the apex; further onshore Cassation is not available.
Source: DIFC Court Rules; DIFC Law 10/2004Three-tier: CFI → Court of Appeal → Court of Cassation. Cassation is on points of law only. Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 sets the appeal windows (typically 30 days from judgment).
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 158-194The ADGM/DIFC two-tier model with permission to appeal mirrors the English Court of Appeal regime. Three-tier civil appeals are the norm in civil-law countries (Egypt, France, Germany — including a cassation layer). The two-tier financial-centre model is intentionally a faster, cleaner alternative for commercial parties.
Source: UK Civil Procedure Rules Part 52The ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 (CPR) closely track the English CPR 1998. Coverage: claim form / defence; case management; statements of truth; disclosure; witness statements; expert evidence; hearings; costs; appeals. Distinctive features: an active case-management overriding objective (Rule 1); proportionality test for costs (Rule 159); broad discretion on disclosure (Rule 80 onwards).
Source: ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016DIFC Court Rules 2014 (Rules of the DIFC Courts), similarly modelled on English CPR but with some local divergences (e.g. DIFC's Rule 13 prescribed-form Practice Directions). Both regimes converge on the essentials.
Source: DIFC Court Rules 2014Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 governs onshore procedure. Procedure is documentary-heavy with limited oral hearings; expert reports are common; witness testimony less so. The new 2022 law modernised the rules for digital filing and remote hearings.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022The ADGM and DIFC procedural regimes are recognisable to any English-trained litigator. They are slightly leaner than the English CPR (no separate Practice Directions on every topic) but otherwise track the same logic. Singapore's Rules of Court 2021 are a close comparator.
Source: UK Civil Procedure Rules 1998; Singapore Rules of Court 2021The ADGM Companies Regulations 2020 are derived directly from the UK Companies Act 2006. Coverage: incorporation; registered office; constitution (articles); directors' duties (ss171-178 of UK CA 2006 mirrored); members' meetings; financial reporting; audit; share capital; reductions; mergers; striking off. ADGM also offers Tech Start-up licence, Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), Restricted Scope Company, Holding Company, and Branch.
Source: ADGM Companies Regulations 2020DIFC Law 5/2018 (Companies Law) is also UK-derived but as DIFC's own statute. Functionally similar director duties, financial reporting and share-capital rules. DIFC has Limited Liability Company, Company Limited by Shares, Branch, Foundation, and the DIFC Prescribed Company (a holding-vehicle structure).
Source: DIFC Law 5/2018 (Companies Law)Federal Commercial Companies Law (FDL 32/2021) governs mainland companies. Key forms: LLC (most common), PJSC, PrJSC, Branch of foreign company. Foreign-ownership rules historically required UAE-national 51% shareholding — relaxed by FDL 32/2021 + Cabinet Resolution 16/2020 (positive list of activities now allowing 100% foreign ownership).
Source: FDL 32/2021 (Commercial Companies Law); Cabinet Resolution 16/2020ADGM Companies Regulations 2020 = nearest equivalent to a "UK company" available outside the UK without needing a UK subsidiary. Singapore Companies Act 1967 (revised 2020) is closer to UK law than ADGM is, given the longer history. Cayman Companies Act + BVI Business Companies Act are also UK-derived but with offshore-specific carve-outs.
Source: UK Companies Act 2006; Singapore Companies Act 1967The ADGM Foundations Regulations 2017 establish a hybrid civil-law / common-law foundation: a separate legal person (unlike a trust) with its own constitution, council members (analogous to trustees) and beneficiaries — used as a wealth-holding, succession-planning and family-office vehicle. Founders can reserve significant powers (revocation, amendment, addition/removal of beneficiaries). Confidentiality is preserved; the Foundation Charter is publicly registered but the by-laws are not.
Source: ADGM Foundations Regulations 2017DIFC Foundations Law (DIFC Law 3/2018) offers a comparable foundation regime. Substantively similar constitutional flexibility and reserved-powers framework. RAKICC Foundations Regulations also offer this structure (RAK International Corporate Centre).
Source: DIFC Foundations Law 3/2018; RAKICC Foundations Regulations 2019No direct onshore equivalent to a Foundation — onshore wealth structures rely on Civil Code 1985 hibah (gift), waqf (Islamic endowment, governed by Cabinet Resolution 13/2018), or shareholding through holding companies. Trusts as such are not native to UAE civil law.
Source: UAE Civil Code (FL 5/1985); Cabinet Resolution 13/2018 (Waqf)ADGM/DIFC Foundations track the Liechtenstein Stiftung, Panama Fundación de Interés Privado, Jersey/Guernsey Foundations, and Cayman Foundation Companies. The civil-law foundation has now displaced the common-law trust as the preferred wealth-structuring vehicle in MENA private-client work.
Source: Liechtenstein PGR Articles 552 ff; Jersey Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009The ADGM Employment Regulations 2019 govern all ADGM-based employment. Headline features: written contract required; probation up to 6 months; minimum 30 days notice; annual leave 20 days (plus public holidays); sick leave up to 60 days (combined paid/unpaid); maternity leave 65 working days (33 fully paid + 32 half paid); end-of-service gratuity replaced by mandatory monthly contributions to a Workplace Savings Plan (WSP — analogous to DIFC's DEWS) since 2020 amendments.
Source: ADGM Employment Regulations 2019; ADGM Workplace Savings Scheme (since 2020)DIFC Law 4/2021 (Employment Law) is the DIFC analogue. DIFC operates the DEWS (DIFC Employee Workplace Savings) scheme, a mandatory funded EOSB-replacement scheme. DIFC employee rights are broadly comparable to ADGM — both are materially closer to UK norms than to the federal regime.
Source: DIFC Law 4/2021 (Employment Law)FDL 33/2021 (Labour Law). Limited-term contracts only; gratuity (not funded scheme); 12-day annual leave for first year, then 30 days; 90-day sick leave; non-competes under Article 10. Onshore employees move under MOHRE jurisdiction; ADGM/DIFC employees under their own framework.
Source: FDL 33/2021 (Labour Law)ADGM and DIFC employment regimes are closer to UK/Singapore norms (funded retirement, longer notice periods) than to the onshore UAE regime. Mandatory funded savings schemes (WSP/DEWS) are closer to Singapore CPF and Australia Superannuation than to the gratuity model used onshore and across the GCC.
Source: Singapore CPF Act; Australian Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993The ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2022 modernise the prior 2015 regime, modelled on the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (as updated by CIGA 2020). Procedures: Administration (rescue with moratorium); Restructuring Plan (cross-class cram-down, modelled on UK CA 2006 Part 26A); Company Voluntary Arrangement; Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation; Compulsory Liquidation; receivership. UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency directly enacted.
Source: ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2022DIFC Insolvency Law (DIFC Law 1/2019) provides similar procedures. Both ADGM and DIFC have enacted UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, enabling foreign main proceedings to be recognised. DIFC Insolvency Law was a significant 2019 modernisation.
Source: DIFC Insolvency Law 1/2019FDL 51/2023 (Bankruptcy Law) replaced FDL 9/2016. Key procedures: Preventive Settlement (debtor-friendly restructuring); Restructuring (creditor-driven); Bankruptcy. Onshore bankruptcy has become substantially more workable post-2023 reform but still differs from ADGM/DIFC's UK-derived approach.
Source: FDL 51/2023 (Bankruptcy Law)ADGM Restructuring Plan (cross-class cram-down) directly mirrors UK CA 2006 Part 26A. DIFC Schemes of Arrangement under Companies Law DIFC Law 5/2018 Part 4 also offer cram-down via class meetings + court sanction. Singapore's IRDA 2018 cram-down is a close peer. The UAE financial centres are now full-spectrum English/Singapore-style restructuring jurisdictions.
Source: UK Companies Act 2006 Part 26A; Singapore IRDA 2018FSRA enforcement decisions (financial penalties, licence suspensions/revocations, prohibitions) can be appealed to the ADGM Regulatory Committee — an independent administrative tribunal. Procedure under FSMR 2015 ss229-236. Standard of review: full merits review (the Committee can substitute its own decision). From the Regulatory Committee, further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on points of law.
Source: FSMR 2015 ss229-236DFSA enforcement decisions appeal to the Financial Markets Tribunal (FMT) under the DFSA Regulatory Law DIFC Law 1/2004 Articles 25-28. Functionally similar full-merits review. Further appeal to the Court of Appeal on points of law.
Source: DIFC Regulatory Law DIFC Law 1/2004 Articles 25-28SCA, CBUAE and IA enforcement decisions appeal through the federal administrative-court system: SCA decisions to the Federal Court; CBUAE decisions to the Federal Court of Appeal Administrative Circuit. Standard of review depends on the regulator's empowering statute.
Source: FDL 4/2000 (SCA Law); CBUAE Regulatory framework (FDL 14/2018)The ADGM Regulatory Committee tracks the UK Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) for FCA appeals. The DIFC FMT tracks the same model. Singapore's appeals from MAS go to the High Court on judicial review (not full merits) — ADGM/DIFC offer broader review than Singapore.
Source: UK FSMA 2000 s132 and Tribunal Procedure RulesThe ADGM Data Protection Regulations 2021 are GDPR-aligned. Key features: data subject rights (access, rectification, erasure, portability); lawful basis requirements; international transfer rules (adequacy decisions or appropriate safeguards); breach notification within 72 hours; mandatory DPO for certain controllers; Office of Data Protection (ODP) supervisory authority. Enforced by the ODP with administrative penalties.
Source: ADGM Data Protection Regulations 2021DIFC Data Protection Law DIFC Law 5/2020 — also GDPR-aligned. Both ADGM and DIFC are listed as adequate jurisdictions under each other's regimes, easing intra-UAE data flows. Both have been recognised by certain foreign regulators as broadly adequate.
Source: DIFC Data Protection Law DIFC Law 5/2020Federal Decree-Law 45/2021 (Personal Data Protection Law). Substantively similar to GDPR with UAE-specific carve-outs. The UAE Data Office is the federal supervisory authority. ADGM and DIFC are not yet listed as adequate jurisdictions under FDL 45/2021 (formal adequacy listing pending).
Source: FDL 45/2021 (Personal Data Protection Law)ADGM, DIFC and onshore UAE have all converged towards GDPR alignment. The UAE is the only GCC country with three coexisting GDPR-style regimes. Saudi Arabia's PDPL 2021 (in force 2023) and Bahrain Law 30/2018 are comparable; Oman's Royal Decree 6/2022 is the newest. EU-UAE adequacy is not yet granted.
Source: GDPR (EU) 2016/679; KSA PDPL 2021ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 establish ADGM as a UNCITRAL Model Law arbitration seat. ADGM Court is the curial court — supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations seated in ADGM (interim measures, tribunal appointment, set-aside applications, recognition and enforcement). The arbitrateAD centre (since 2024) is administered alongside the ADGM Arbitration Centre. arbitrateAD Rules 2024 are the modern institutional rules of choice for ADGM-seat arbitrations.
Source: ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015; arbitrateAD Rules 2024DIFC Arbitration Law DIFC Law 1/2008 establishes DIFC as a UNCITRAL Model Law seat. DIAC (Dubai International Arbitration Centre) is the principal institutional centre, having absorbed DIFC-LCIA in 2021 (Dubai Decree 34/2021). DIAC 2022 Rules are the modern reference instrument.
Source: DIFC Law 1/2008; DIAC Rules 2022; Dubai Decree 34/2021FDL 6/2018 (Federal Arbitration Law) is the UAE federal arbitration regime — UNCITRAL Model Law-based. Federal courts are the curial courts for onshore-seated arbitrations. New York Convention 1958 in force since 2006.
Source: FDL 6/2018; New York Convention 1958The UAE now has three modern UNCITRAL-aligned arbitration regimes (FDL 6/2018 onshore, DIFC Law 1/2008, ADGM 2015). All three are New York Convention compliant via the UAE's accession. Singapore (IAA Cap 143A), Hong Kong (Arbitration Ordinance Cap 609) and London (Arbitration Act 1996) remain the major comparator seats.
Source: UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 (revised 2006)ADGM Court has handled crypto-related disputes since 2018. The FSRA's Crypto Asset Framework (introduced 2018, updated 2023) means ADGM-licensed virtual-asset firms come under both FSRA enforcement and Court jurisdiction. Court has applied common-law principles to crypto asset proprietary claims, freezing orders over wallet addresses, and trustee-style remedies in fraud cases. ADGM is one of the more crypto-experienced common-law benches globally.
Source: FSRA Crypto Asset Framework 2018 (updated 2023); ADGM Court judgmentsDIFC Court has comparable jurisdiction. DFSA's Crypto Token Regime (since 2021) provides the regulatory layer. Less crypto case-law than ADGM but the substantive common-law principles apply equally.
Source: DFSA Crypto Token Regime; DIFC Court judgmentsVARA (Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority) regulates Dubai virtual asset service providers under Dubai Law 4/2022. Federal CBUAE Stablecoin Regulation governs payment tokens. Disputes proceed through ordinary onshore courts — no specialist crypto bench. Civil-law principles applied; novel proprietary-claim issues less developed than in ADGM/DIFC.
Source: Dubai Law 4/2022; CBUAE Payment Token Services RegulationADGM Court's crypto jurisprudence sits alongside the English Commercial Court (AA v Persons Unknown [2019], D'Aloia v Persons Unknown [2022]), Singapore High Court (B2C2 v Quoine [2020], CLM v CLN [2022]), and the New York District Court. ADGM is in the leading group of common-law crypto-dispute jurisdictions.
Source: AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm); B2C2 v Quoine [2020] SGCA(I) 02The "loser pays" cost-shifting principle applies (Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rule 159). Recoverable costs include reasonable legal fees, expert fees, and disbursements, subject to a proportionality test. Costs typically recovered: 60-80% of actual legal spend in routine cases; can reach 90%+ on indemnity-basis costs awards (e.g. against a party who has acted unreasonably). Court fees are calculated as a percentage of claim value with caps.
Source: ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rules 159-178Comparable cost-shifting. DIFC publishes a Costs Practice Direction. Court fees generally 2-7% of claim value, capped at USD 75,000 in CFI. Lawyer fees on top — full-bench commercial trials commonly USD 500k-2m+ depending on scope.
Source: DIFC Court Rules; Costs Practice DirectionOnshore courts award nominal lawyer-fee costs — typically AED 500-3,000 regardless of actual spend. The economic effect: each side largely bears its own legal fees. Court fees are 7.5% of claim value (Dubai), capped at AED 30,000.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 133-141; Dubai Decree 30/2013ADGM/DIFC English-style cost-shifting is materially different from civil-law and US "American rule" (each side bears own fees). UK "loser pays subject to proportionality" is the closest peer. Singapore SICC has the most generous cost recovery for international commercial cases.
Source: UK Civil Procedure Rules Part 44; Singapore SICC RulesYes — third-party litigation funding is permitted in ADGM. ADGM follows the modern English position: maintenance and champerty are abolished as torts/crimes (English position from Criminal Law Act 1967). Disclosure of funding to opponent and Court is good practice. ADGM has not (yet) imposed mandatory disclosure rules.
Source: ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015; English Criminal Law Act 1967DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 expressly permits third-party funding and requires disclosure of the funder's identity. Similar to ADGM and aligned with international common-law practice.
Source: DIFC Practice Direction 2/2017Onshore UAE has no specific litigation-funding framework. Such arrangements are not prohibited but are uncommon and untested in the federal courts. Civil Code restrictions on contingent-fee arrangements limit the lawyer's role on the client side.
Source: UAE Civil Code; FDL 23/1991 (Legal Profession Law)ADGM/DIFC litigation funding aligns with England (post-Excalibur Ventures and PACCAR), Singapore (since 2017 amendments), and Hong Kong (since 2019 ORA amendments). UK Supreme Court's PACCAR decision in 2023 (re funding of competition group claims) caused a re-examination of funder-client agreements; ADGM/DIFC have not been similarly disturbed.
Source: Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone [2016] EWCA Civ 1144; PACCAR Inc v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28English-style legal privilege applies. Legal advice privilege: confidential communications between client and lawyer for the purpose of giving/receiving legal advice. Litigation privilege: communications + documents prepared for the dominant purpose of pending or contemplated litigation. Common interest privilege: shared privileged material between aligned parties. Without-prejudice rule applies to settlement communications.
Source: ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015; English common law (Three Rivers; Eurasian Natural Resources)Comparable English-style privilege. DIFC Court Rules adopt the same framework. Both ADGM and DIFC apply the strict Three Rivers (No 5) "client" test for legal advice privilege within companies.
Source: DIFC Court Rules; English common lawLawyer-client confidentiality is protected under FDL 23/1991 (Legal Profession Law) Article 41 and UAE Penal Code Article 379 (criminal sanction for breach). The protection is closer to professional secrecy than to the English-style two-track privilege; the UAE position is functionally similar in outcome but doctrinally different.
Source: FDL 23/1991 Article 41; UAE Penal Code Article 379ADGM/DIFC privilege tracks English common law directly. Materially different from US attorney-client privilege + work product doctrine; closer to Singapore Evidence Act ss128-131.
Source: Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 5) [2003] QB 1556; Singapore Evidence Act ss128-131Standard disclosure under Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rules 80-93: documents on which a party relies; documents adversely affecting its own case; documents adversely affecting another party's case; documents supporting another party's case. Mandatory list of documents (Form D); rolling duty to disclose. Less expansive than US-style discovery but broader than civil-law document-production.
Source: ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 Rules 80-93Comparable framework under DIFC Court Rules. Both jurisdictions track the English CPR Part 31 standard, with the option of more limited disclosure under specific Practice Directions for shorter / lower-value cases.
Source: DIFC Court RulesOnshore civil procedure is documentary-heavy but disclosure is request-based: a party may ask the court to order production of specific documents in the opponent's possession (Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 78-83). No general standard-disclosure obligation; no rolling duty.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 78-83ADGM/DIFC disclosure ≈ English standard disclosure. Materially less expansive than US discovery (depositions, interrogatories, broader doc requests). Singapore IRDA-side disclosure is the closest peer.
Source: UK CPR Part 31; US FRCP 26-37ADGM applies the English common-law principles for recognising foreign judgments — provided the foreign court had jurisdiction in the international sense, the judgment is final and conclusive, and the substantive cause of action is recognised in ADGM. ADGM has Memoranda of Understanding/Guidance with various foreign courts (UK, Singapore, others). New York Convention 1958 applies to arbitral awards.
Source: ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015; English common-law principlesDIFC Court Law DIFC Law 10/2004 sets out the recognition framework. Functionally similar to ADGM. DIFC has more developed case-law on recognition (e.g. Ruwadi Group v Vannin, Lateef v ENBD) given longer operational history.
Source: DIFC Law 10/2004; DIFC Court judgmentsCivil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 222-225 governs foreign-judgment recognition. The court applies a reciprocity test plus jurisdictional and natural-justice safeguards. The 2018 amendment of the predecessor law substantially eased recognition; Cabinet Decision 57/2018 accelerated execution of foreign judgments where reciprocity demonstrated.
Source: Civil Procedure Law 42/2022 Articles 222-225; Cabinet Decision 57/2018ADGM/DIFC foreign-judgment recognition tracks the English common-law model — recognised globally as a robust, predictable framework. The UAE acceded to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Documents 1965, easing service-related procedural points. Onshore recognition is materially easier post-2018 reform but still slower than ADGM/DIFC.
Source: Hague Service Convention 1965; UK common-law recognition frameworkNot legal advice. This entry is reference. Specific facts always change the answer. Speak to us for matter-specific advice.
We add Q&As as practitioners ask them. Same business-day partner response on matter-specific advice.
Speak to us →