Arbitration Jurisdiction Challenges in UAE: Contesting Tribunal Authority

Who rules on the tribunal authority question, on what grounds, and why the timing decides so much

Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 makes the tribunal the first adjudicator of its own jurisdiction. This article sets out where an objection can be raised, what the UAE courts will still review, how the institutional rules shape the timetable, and the grounds that run from a defective arbitration agreement to disputes UAE law does not allow a tribunal to decide.

By Nour Attorneys / 22 August 2026

Reviewed by Mohamed Noureldin, Founder, Managing Partner & Senior Legal Consultant

An objection to the tribunal's authority decides whether the dispute reaches a substantive hearing at all, or is dismissed at a preliminary stage. Under the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018, the tribunal is the first adjudicator of its own jurisdiction, so the objection is heard by the body whose authority it questions. When the objection is made matters as much as the ground it rests on: delayed or poorly substantiated challenges may be deemed waived.

The statute, and the two places an objection can be made

Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 aligns closely with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It sets the parameters within which arbitral tribunals exercise their authority, including the kompetenz-kompetenz principle.

The law gives parties a procedural pathway to raise jurisdictional objections either before the tribunal or before the competent UAE courts. Objections may address issues such as the validity of the arbitration agreement, the scope of disputes covered by the arbitration clause, and the competence of the tribunal to hear specific claims.

Related: Our arbitration team acts for parties in UAE arbitrations.

Objections are made early, and for a reason

Jurisdictional objections are not merely legal technicalities. Parties raise them early to gain a procedural advantage, or to stop the opposing party's claims before the tribunal commits resources to the substantive hearing. A party can contest jurisdiction on grounds including the validity of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the dispute, and the proper constitution of the tribunal itself.

The tribunal has to hold a balanced inquiry. It respects the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, while ensuring that jurisdictional challenges are not used to unduly delay proceedings.

Early identification and rigorous articulation of an objection can dispose of the claims, or can confirm the tribunal's authority so that the arbitration proceeds on its substantive merits.

Kompetenz-kompetenz gives the tribunal two roles at once

The principle is firmly entrenched in UAE arbitration law. Under it, arbitral tribunals have the power to determine their own jurisdiction, including objections related to the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.

The practical effect is that parties avoid the delays that arise from immediate recourse to the courts. The cost is that the tribunal holds two roles at the same time: gatekeeper and adjudicator. Arbitrators decide whether they may hear the case, and then hear it. That asks for legal rigour and procedural fairness at once, so that neither party is unduly prejudiced.

What the UAE courts will reopen, and what they will not

A tribunal's jurisdictional rulings are generally subject to limited judicial review. UAE courts generally respect kompetenz-kompetenz and limit their intervention to exceptional circumstances, which reflects the UAE's intent to minimise court interference in arbitration.

The courts have not given the point away. They retain the authority to review jurisdictional decisions, particularly when arbitrability or public policy concerns arise. They also retain the power to review a tribunal's jurisdictional ruling under certain conditions, such as when a ruling is manifestly erroneous or conflicts with public policy.

That interplay between tribunal rulings and judicial review runs through international and domestic arbitrations alike.

The institutional rules set the timetable for a jurisdictional ruling

The UAE's arbitration institutions, including the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market Arbitration Centre (ADGMAC), have developed procedural rules that reflect the kompetenz-kompetenz principle. Those rules often provide for dedicated jurisdictional hearings, or allow the tribunal to issue preliminary decisions on jurisdiction.

The statute points the same way. It permits preliminary jurisdictional hearings and the bifurcation of proceedings, so that jurisdictional questions are separated from the substantive issues. A party can therefore press for the threshold question to be resolved early in the arbitration.

The tribunal's initial ruling can significantly influence the trajectory of the dispute, so parties must prepare their objection carefully under these institutional rules. Choosing that moment is part of what our arbitration team does.

Fraud, duress, and a clause that does not reach the dispute

One common ground questions the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Parties may argue that the agreement was never concluded, that it was invalid due to fraud or duress, or that the arbitration clause does not encompass the dispute at hand.

An argument of that kind puts the contract back in front of the tribunal. The tribunal has to examine the contractual context carefully, along with any relevant communications between the parties.

An arbitrator who should not be sitting

A party may also contest the tribunal's authority by challenging the appointment or qualification of arbitrators. The argument is that the tribunal was not properly constituted in accordance with the arbitration agreement or applicable rules.

Such challenges can have a profound impact on the proceedings. They can lead to the reconstitution of the tribunal, or to dismissal of the arbitration. That is why the strategic timing and articulation of these objections are crucial, and why delayed or poorly substantiated challenges may be deemed waived.

Where party autonomy stops

Arbitrability asks whether a dispute is capable of being resolved through arbitration under the applicable law. An objection on this ground is not about the clause. It says that the dispute is one UAE law does not allow a tribunal to decide.

UAE arbitration law and related judicial precedents identify certain disputes as non-arbitrable, particularly those touching upon criminal law, certain family law matters, bankruptcy proceedings, and disputes involving UAE public policy. Issues reserved exclusively for UAE courts sit outside arbitration for the same reason.

The tribunal then has to assess whether the dispute meets the criteria for arbitrability, balancing respect for party autonomy with compliance to mandatory legal norms. Parties opposing arbitration often argue that the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitrable matters, invoking UAE public policy as a protective mechanism. Both the tribunal and the courts have a part in keeping non-arbitrable disputes out of arbitration, which safeguards the integrity of the arbitration process and compliance with UAE legal norms.

The public policy restrictions that reach specific subject matter

Public policy considerations in the UAE play a decisive role in determining the scope of arbitrability. Disputes relating to real estate ownership in freehold areas, certain intellectual property rights, or matters involving federal government entities may be subject to special restrictions.

A tribunal that fails to recognise these limitations puts the award at risk, because that failure can lead to judicial annulment of arbitral awards. It is a risk parties seek to mitigate through early jurisdictional challenges.

For advice on arbitration jurisdiction challenges in the UAE, contact our international arbitration team.