United Arab Emirates

Few would have predicted that one of the brightest stories in global fintech would come from the Middle East and North Africa, yet in less than a decade the region has turned into a centre of momentum. While investment across Europe and North America has cooled of late, funding in the MENA region passed USD 2 billion in 2024 with the number of active firms climbing beyond 1,500. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt are at the forefront, creating new unicorns and attracting global investors to a market that offers the conditions fintech startups need to succeed at scale. This article looks at why MENA has emerged as one of the most promising regions in the world for fintech growth, and what sets it apart from established hubs elsewhere. Capital flows and investor appetite Much of the region’s momentum comes from how capital is being deployed. Gulf sovereign funds and large family groups have made fintech part of their wider investment strategies, often backing firms at a speed and scale that founders elsewhere struggle to match. In Saudi Arabia alone, fintech startups raised about USD 1.3 billion across 2023 and 2024, with deals such as stc Bank’s USD 200 million round setting new benchmarks for the sector. The UAE has followed a similar course, with Dubai-based funds leading a significant share of Gulf fintech rounds in 2024. This depth of liquidity shortens the path from seed to growth stage, cutting out the long pauses and down rounds that are common in Europe and North America. Average deal times in the Gulf are often measured in weeks rather than months, which changes the rhythm of building a company and gives startups in the region a rare advantage. Regulation and supportive frameworks The other reason startups have gained pace in the region is the way regulators have opened the door while keeping oversight firm. In Saudi Arabia, the central bank has played a leading role, issuing three digital bank licences and running a sandbox that has now approved more than 50 new models in payments, lending, and wealth tools. That mix of permission and supervision has allowed firms to test at scale without losing the confidence of customers or investors. Elsewhere, Dubai’s DIFC and Bahrain have taken a similar course, giving early stage companies structured routes to trial products under watch before moving into full licences. Open banking is also being phased in, with Saudi Arabia mandating rollout across banks by 2025. These steps give smaller firms access to data once held tightly by incumbents and make it clearer how startups can grow within the system without the regulatory grey areas seen in other markets. Demographics and consumer demand The strength of the region’s fintech market also rests on its demographics. More than half of the population is under 30, and smartphone penetration in Gulf states sits above 90 percent. That combination of youth and digital access has created a consumer base ready to adopt new financial services at speed. In Saudi Arabia, where about 70 percent of adults were outside the formal banking system only a decade ago, the use of digital wallets has grown by more than 40 percent year on year. Buy-now-pay-later services have also surged, with adoption rates among the highest in the world. This shows how quickly consumer behaviour is changing. Egypt is seeing the same effect, with mobile payments now processing transactions in the billions each year. For fintech founders, it means the region offers a customer base that’s both young and highly engaged with new ways of managing money. Government agendas and infrastructure Fintech growth in the region is also being shaped by government strategies that treat digital finance as part of wider economic reform. In Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030 set a target of raising cashless transactions to 70 percent by the end of the decade, and programmes like Fintech Saudi have already helped hundreds of startups move from pilot to market. Public backing has also included direct funding, incubators, and links between regulators, banks, and universities to build a stronger talent base. The UAE has taken a parallel route, with DIFC and ADGM both promoting fintech hubs that connect early stage firms with capital and licensing support. Bahrain has positioned itself as a first mover in regional open banking rules, drawing in cross-border entrants. These initiatives mean startups can access clearer licensing routes, stronger institutional backing, and a deeper pool of skilled talent, all of which make it easier to build and scale. Global positioning and cross-border growth Beyond domestic policy, the regional fintech story has an international dimension. Saudi Arabia has pushed forward on cross-border payments, with the central bank linking systems to the UAE and experimenting with digital currencies for trade settlement. Several Gulf-backed fintechs have already expanded into Egypt, Pakistan, and parts of Africa, using the region’s location as a bridge between large neighbouring markets. Global comparisons highlight the scale of this progress. While London and Singapore remain established hubs, MENA’s fintech revenue is forecast to grow at more than twice the global average, reaching a projected annual rate of 35 percent through 2028. For founders, that means the dual benefit of a fast-growing home market and a base from which to reach neighbouring economies in Africa and South Asia. From local momentum to global reach Fintech in the region has moved to the centre of global growth. Capital is flowing at record pace, regulation is structured but open, consumer demand is strong, and governments are backing the sector as part of wider economic reform. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt stand out, yet the effect is regional, with scale that stretches beyond national borders. For founders and investors, this is a market where growth today connects directly to influence over how financial systems in MENA, Africa, and South Asia develop in the years ahead.

Business dealings in Dubai can run smoothly for years, yet disputes are part of commercial life. A contract may be breached, payment withheld, or a partnership come to an end. When that happens, the parties often have no choice but to take the issue before the courts. Dubai is unusual in having two parallel systems that hear civil and commercial cases. The local courts follow UAE procedure, while the DIFC Courts operate independently with their own framework. Which forum you use shapes the process, from filing to judgment, and can influence timing, cost, and enforcement. The sections below explain how cases are filed in each. Jurisdiction and choice of court When contracts are drafted in Dubai, one of the most practical points to settle is which court will hear disputes. If there’s no clause on jurisdiction, cases with a local link usually fall to the Dubai Courts. Proceedings there are in Arabic, they follow UAE civil procedure, and parties need certified translations of their documents. The DIFC Courts give a very different route. They apply common law, conduct hearings in English, and have a reputation for handling cross-border cases. What makes them stand out is the opt-in clause. A single line in a contract can move future disputes into the DIFC system even if the dispute itself has nothing to do with the free zone. That’s why many contracts with foreign parties include it by default, especially if judgments need to be enforced abroad or complex finance issues are at stake. Filing a case in Dubai Courts Filing and registration A case in the Dubai Courts begins with a detailed statement of claim that sets out the dispute, the legal basis, and the remedy being sought. It’s filed online through the court portal and the fee is paid at that stage. Fees are linked to the value of the claim but are capped at AED 40,000 for civil and commercial disputes. Once the claim is accepted, the court registers it and serves the defendant, usually by electronic notification though bailiffs are still used in some cases. Hearings, judgment, and appeal From there the file moves into case management, where a judge checks the pleadings and evidence before fixing hearing dates. Hearings themselves are brief, sometimes only a few minutes, because most submissions are handled in writing. Since proceedings are in Arabic, every contract or piece of evidence in another language has to be translated by a certified translator, and this is often where delay and extra cost arise. Judgments in straightforward cases are often issued within a few months. Appeals must be filed within 30 days, first to the Court of Appeal and then, on points of law, to the Court of Cassation. Once a judgment is final it goes to the execution court, which has broad powers to enforce payment by freezing accounts or attaching assets. Filing a case in DIFC Courts Unlike the Dubai Courts, where every claim starts with a detailed statement in Arabic, the DIFC process begins with a simple claim form filed through the eRegistry and the fee paid at the same time. Once the case is accepted it’s assigned to a judge, who sets the timetable for how it will move forward. The system is designed to be fast and accessible, and in practice most filings are handled online without difficulty. Procedure also feels different to the local courts. Judges hold case management conferences, timetables are fixed early, and disclosure of documents is broader. Hearings are often longer and more detailed, reflecting the common law style. Because everything is in English, parties avoid the cost and delay of translating contracts and witness statements, which is often a deciding factor for international businesses. Appeals go to the DIFC Court of Appeal and in limited cases to the Court of Cassation. Judgments can be taken into the Dubai Courts for enforcement and are often easier to rely on abroad, so this route is frequently written into contracts where cross-border enforcement is expected. Practical considerations when choosing where to file When weighing the two court systems, the decision usually comes down to priorities rather than a single feature. For businesses trading mainly within the UAE, the Dubai Courts often provide a more direct route to enforcement, while for cross-border contracts the DIFC’s links to international recognition can be more persuasive. The nature of the dispute also carries weight. Complex finance or shareholder issues are often better suited to the DIFC, where judges have international backgrounds and cases are managed in a common law style. By contrast, local trade disputes or straightforward debt claims tend to move more smoothly through the Dubai Courts. Cost also plays a part. DIFC’s higher fees may be justified if the case is document-heavy, conducted in English, or likely to need recognition abroad. For claims centred on straightforward obligations or local dealings, the Dubai Courts tend to be the more practical option.

Dubai, UAE 15 September 2025 - Al Tamimi & Company, the leading full-service law firm in the Middle East, is pleased to announce that Anton Konnov and Igor Gorchakov have joined the firm as partners. Anton and Igor join the firm with a team of associates bringing the total to four new additions. This step further supports the firm’s strategic focus on expanding its transactional M&A, banking and contentious offerings. Anton and Igor bring an extensive track record of delivering high-value legal solutions across Corporate/M&A, banking, and cross-border disputes (particularly for international financial services clients). Their Magic Circle experience positions them to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional matters for a diverse global client base. Anton Konnov is qualified in England & Wales, New York, and Russia. He previously served as the Managing Partner of A&O Shearman’s Moscow office and has led teams on major international transactions across a wide range of sectors. His practice spans corporate law, regulatory advisory, and cross-border M&A, and he brings extensive experience in law firm leadership and international business operations. Igor Gorchakov is dual-qualified in England & Wales and Russia and holds full rights of audience before the DIFC Courts in Dubai. He specializes in dispute resolution and banking matters, including international arbitration, cross-border litigation, and financial regulatory compliance. Igor has represented leading financial institutions and corporates across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Jody Waugh, Managing Partner of Al Tamimi & Company commented: “We are delighted to welcome Anton and Igor to the firm. Their experience, depth of expertise, and international credentials will enhance our capabilities and enable us to support our clients across borders.” Anton said: “Al Tamimi & Company has developed an outstanding transactional M&A track record across the region, built on strong foundations and deep local roots in each of its markets. I am excited to join and work alongside its impressive bench of talent delivering best in class services across a range of sectors.” Igor added: “It’s an exciting period to be joining Al Tamimi & Company. The firm’s Dispute Resolution and Banking & Finance practices are highly regarded across the Middle East and command an unparalleled understanding of the region’s legal landscape.” Anton and Igor's appointments follow a series of strategic hires over the past year, including Omar Zizi who joined the Firm as a Corporate/M&A partner in Casablanca, Rachel Fox, who joined the Firm's Abu Dhabi office as Tax partner, Henry Storrar, who joined as a Corporate/M&A partner in Abu Dhabi and Paul Taylor who joined as regional Head of Arbitration, based in Dubai. About Al Tamimi and Company Al Tamimi and Company is the leading full-service law firm in the UAE and MENA region, with 17 offices across 10 countries. Since 1989, we have delivered innovative, cost-effective legal solutions to address complex business challenges. Our team of 580+ legal professionals combines deep expertise with practical insights, offering commercially focused advice that drives client success. With a commitment to diversity and inclusion, we foster a dynamic environment that attracts top talent and empowers us to deliver outstanding results across industries.

Introduction While the UAE has positioned itself as a global arbitration hub, conducting arbitration there can be a minefield, especially for foreign parties unfamiliar with the nuances of its legal landscape. The UAE's arbitration landscape is characterised by several distinct regimes. Arbitrations seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) are governed by offshore legal regimes. These two special economic zones have their own arbitration laws and regulations, which are largely similar to English common law principles. In contrast, the onshore legal regime applies to arbitrations seated elsewhere in the UAE. Parties unfamiliar with this segmented system often do not fully appreciate the nuances and potential pitfalls associated with each arbitration regime. The offshore regimes are generally perceived as more arbitration-friendly due to their common law heritage and specialised judiciary, and the onshore regime is often viewed as more challenging by international practitioners. While Article 20 of the Dubai Internation Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules 2022 and Article 22 provide for the default seat to be in the offshore legal regimes (DIFC and ADGM respectively), many arbitration agreements provide for the seat in the onshore UAE. This publication aims to highlight potential pitfalls of the onshore arbitration regime from the perspective of an international arbitration practitioner or in-house counsel. It may be particularly useful during the early stages of a dispute for forming an initial opinion about potential challenges or when drafting dispute resolution clauses, particularly concerning the selection of the seat of arbitration. The same pitfalls may be relevant when a foreign arbitral award (including one issued in the DIFC or ADGM seated arbitration) needs to be recognised and enforced in onshore UAE. Judicial System, Mindset, and Interpretation The onshore UAE operates under a civil law system, while international commercial arbitration largely stems from common law traditions. This fundamental difference can lead to variations in judicial interpretation, even for laws based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The absence of binding judicial precedents further contributes to less predictable outcomes compared to common law systems. Many judges and practitioners also retain a traditional civil law view of court supremacy over arbitration, considering arbitration an "exceptional" method of dispute resolution. This often results in a more rigid and less arbitration-friendly interpretation of legal provisions than seen in common law jurisdictions. Collectively, these factors can lead to unexpected annulment decisions or challenges during enforcement. Specific Authority for Arbitration Agreements A significant requirement in onshore UAE arbitration is that an individual entering into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a company must possess specific authority to do so. Typically, this necessitates a shareholders' resolution or an express grant of authority within the articles of association. Concepts of apparent authority and implied authority are generally not recognised in onshore-seated arbitrations, as opposed to offshore-seated arbitrations. The practical implication is that a company may claim an arbitration agreement is not binding if the signatory lacked this specific authority, even if it was a director or top executive who signed it, and the company participated in the arbitration. For example, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation recently set aside an award because the agreement containing an arbitration clause was signed by the company CEO, whereas the company articles of association authorised the Chairman of the Board of Directors to enter into arbitration agreements.  The company’s participation in the arbitration and failure to object did not constitute a waiver of its right to invoke invalidity of the arbitration clause (Case No. 902 of 2024). Arbitration Agreement Incorporated by Reference UAE courts typically require that the document containing an arbitration clause be signed by the parties, even though this is not explicitly mandated by law. This requirement can raise questions about the validity of an arbitration agreement when a contract incorporates an arbitration clause by reference to another document, such as terms and conditions. Formalities Non-compliance with formalities can lead to the invalidation of an arbitral award. For example, although Article 41(3) of the UAE Arbitration Law simply states that "the award shall be signed by the arbitrators," UAE courts have interpreted this to mean that the award must be signed by the tribunal on every page containing the reasoning and dispositive section. The best practice, therefore, is to sign every page of the award to ensure compliance and avoid potential disputes. While certain exceptions exist, they have been interpreted very restrictively. A failure to comply with this signature requirement has been deemed a violation of UAE public policy, which is a ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Article 53(2)(b) of the UAE Arbitration Law. The Committee for the Unification of Federal and Local Judicial Principles which is tasked with unifying conflicting judicial principles issued a decision on 4 August 2025 holding that signature on the last page of the award is sufficient. This is a very positive development, and it is hoped all UAE courts will follow it uniformly. Public Order or Morals The extent of judicial scrutiny of arbitral awards in the UAE at the enforcement stage may sometimes be rather wide, occasionally delving into the merits or re-evaluating factual findings of an award. In particular, the concept of public order or morals has been interpreted widely. A UAE court may, on its own initiative, set aside an award on this basis. Unrecoverable Legal Costs Legal costs are largely not recoverable in onshore litigation in the UAE. It seems this practice has influenced the UAE courts in their approach to legal costs in arbitration, even when an arbitral award orders payment of legal costs. For example, the Dubai Court of Cassation confirmed the partial annulment of an ICC award in the part which concerns the allocation of legal costs (Case No 821 and 857 of 2023). The court reasoned that the costs of arbitration, as defined by the UAE Arbitration Law (Federal Law 6/2018), do not include legal costs paid by the parties to their legal representatives. It held that the parties' arbitration agreement did not explicitly include an agreement on holding either party liable for legal expenses or authorising the arbitral tribunal to determine them. Consequently, the relevant part of the award was annulled, and the award debtor was not obligated to pay legal costs of the opponent. This intervention was surprising and unexpected, given that the ICC arbitration rules, which were incorporated into the parties' agreement, expressly defined arbitration costs to include legal and other costs incurred by the parties. On the other hand, the Dubai Court of Cassation held recently that a party may recover the full amount of legal fees in onshore litigation (Judgment No. 503/2025). It remains to be seen whether this judgment has created a uniform general rule on recoverability of legal costs. Confidentiality Established common law arbitration hubs prioritise the preservation of arbitration confidentiality, often through anonymisation, redaction, and private hearings for arbitration-related court matters. In the UAE, while the confidentiality of the arbitration itself is recognised, the default is that any court case pertaining to an arbitral award will be heard publicly, like any other case. The burden rests heavily on the party to persuade the court to grant exceptional privacy measures for related judgments, which are not routinely granted. This implies a higher likelihood of case details becoming public. Interim Measures While the UAE federal arbitration law permits tribunals to issue interim measures and allows for court assistance, the scope and speed of obtaining certain types of injunctive relief from onshore UAE courts can be more limited or slower compared to common law arbitration hubs. For example, relief such as worldwide freezing orders, asset disclosure orders, specific performance orders, pre-action document disclosure orders, perpetuation of evidence orders, and anti-suit injunctions are either not available, difficult to obtain, or limited in scope. Regarding anti-suit injunctions, the Dubai Court of Cassation recently held that an arbitral tribunal possesses the authority to issue such injunctions (Appeal No. 657 of 2025, 3 July 2025); however, the consistent application of this principle by lower courts will need to be observed over time. Arbitrability of Disputes Certain types of disputes are considered non-arbitrable in the onshore UAE due to public policy. The scope and depth of such disputes are generally broader than in common law arbitration hubs. For instance, commercial agency disputes, particularly those registered under the UAE Commercial Agencies Law, have been considered non-arbitrable or subject to specific jurisdictional requirements due to their perceived public policy implications. Further, a wide range of bankruptcy-related issues are non-arbitrable. Unilateral Arbitration Clauses A unilateral (also known as optional or asymmetric) arbitration clause grants one party the right to choose between arbitration and litigation, while confining the other party to a single forum. The Dubai Court of Cassation has held that such clauses do not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under UAE law (Commercial Appeal No. 735 of 2024, 29 October 2024). Less Predictable Court Decisions Although the UAE continues to evolve into a more arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, court decisions often remain less predictable than in more established jurisdictions, especially concerning legal concepts with limited or no prior judgments. For instance, the inconsistent rulings on unilateral arbitration clauses highlight this unpredictability. Shortly before the case on unilateral arbitration clauses mentioned above, the same Dubai Court of Cassation rendered another judgment upholding a unilateral arbitration clause (Dubai Court of Cassation Commercial Appeal No. 1522/2023). Sudden Changes in Law Laws and regulations are frequently enacted without prior public discussion and with little to no advance notice. Furthermore, these laws often lack detailed provisions, making their application difficult, unpredictable, and sometimes impossible. A notable example is Decree 34/2021, issued on 20 September 2021, which abolished the DIFC-LCIA and Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC) with immediate effect, taking all legal community by surprise. Although the Decree provided for the transfer of cases and assets to DIAC, no specific mechanism for this transfer was prescribed, leading to many cases being in limbo for months. Language Barrier and Translation While arbitration proceedings can be conducted in English or any other agreed language, interactions with the onshore UAE courts — such as for interim measures, arbitrator appointments, or, crucially, for the ratification, annulment, and enforcement of awards — require documents to be translated into Arabic by a sworn legal translator. This not only adds time and cost but also frequently results in inaccurate translations, as some terms may be difficult or nearly impossible to translate correctly due to linguistic differences. This can result in the loss of nuances and misinterpretation, potentially leading to an unexpected or unfavourable court decision. Alternatively, if a translation error is identified by the opposing party, this may serve as grounds for challenges. Conclusion For in-house counsel and international practitioners, understanding these jurisdictional nuances is essential. A strategic choice of seat, robust arbitration clauses, and awareness of procedural quirks can significantly reduce the risk of unenforceability, delay, costs and other issues. Arthur Dedels, Senior Associate, Fichte & Co