• news-banner

    Expert Insights

UAE Supreme Court: foreign parties cannot confer jurisdiction on onshore courts

On 17 July 2025, the UAE Supreme Court delivered an important judgment clarifying the jurisdiction of the UAE onshore courts over disputes between foreign companies. The decision confirms that where both parties are foreign entities with no domicile or place of business in the UAE, the UAE Courts will generally have no jurisdiction, even if the contract between them contains a clause purporting to submit (or opt-in to) the jurisdiction of the UAE Courts.

Background to the dispute

The case arose from a contractual dispute between two foreign companies. The contract included a clause referring the dispute to the UAE Courts. However, neither company was domiciled in the UAE, nor did either have a branch, office or other permanent establishment in the country. The dispute related to obligations and performance entirely outside the UAE, with no connection to UAE-based assets or events.  

The Supreme Court’s reasoning 

The Supreme Courts applied Article 20 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Law No.42 of 2022) which sets out the limited circumstances in which the UAE courts may exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants with no domicile in the country. These include cases where:

  • The defendant has an elected domicile in the UAE
  • The dispute concerns real estate in the UAE
  • The contract is concluded or performed in the UAE
  • The dispute relates to an event or harmful act that occurred in the UAE.

Importantly, Article 20 expressly renders void any agreement that confers jurisdiction on the UAE Courts in the absence of these statutory conditions.

The Supreme Court found that none of the jurisdictional triggers in Article 20 were satisfied. As a result, the contractual jurisdiction could not override the statutory requirement. The Court held that the UAE onshore courts lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the claim in its entirety.

Comparison with the DIFC and ADGM courts 

The position under the UAE onshore courts stands in clear contrast to that of the DIFC Courts and ADGM Courts, both of which are opt-in jurisdictions.

The DIFC Courts operate under the DIFC Courts Law (Dubai Law No. 5 of 2024). Unlike Article 20 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, the DIFC regime expressly permits jurisdiction based purely on the parties’ consent. Under the DIFC Courts Law, the DIFC Courts will have jurisdiction where the parties have expressly agreed in writing to submit to their jurisdiction, regardless of domicile or any factual connection to the DIFC. This means that two foreign parties with no UAE presence may still validly litigate their disputes in the DIFC Courts if their contract includes a DIFC jurisdiction clause. The DIFC Courts have consistently upheld such opt-in agreements, underscoring party autonomy and freedom of contract.

Similarly, under section 16(2)(e) of the ADGM Courts Regulations the ADGM Court of First Instance will have jurisdiction where the parties have made a request in writing to have the Court determine the claim or dispute.

Key takeaways

  • Parties to a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on the UAE Courts if neither has a domicile or relevant connection to the UAE under Article 20 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law.
  • Jurisdictional clauses in a contract involving foreign parties must be carefully reviewed in light of the UAE law as they may be unenforceable if statutory conditions are absent.
  • Businesses should ensure that, where UAE jurisdiction is desired, there is a substantial link to the UAE, such as performance of contractual obligations in the UAE or the presence of UAE-based assets.
  • Parties can still opt-in to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts and the ADGM Courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of aligning contractual jurisdictional clauses with the mandatory jurisdictional rules in the UAE law. It confirms that the UAE onshore courts will take a restrictive approach to assuming jurisdiction over purely foreign disputes, thereby upholding the principle of territorial nexus in UAE onshore civil litigation. 

Our thinking

  • Saudi Arabia’s 2025 Law on Expropriation of Real Estate for Public Interest and Temporary Taking of Property: Key Takeaways on the New Legal Framework

    Etidal Alwazani

    Insights

  • Jamie Cartwright writes for Independent Schools Magazine on how VAT on private school fees is shaping the future of the independent education sector

    Jamie Cartwright

    In the Press

  • Magnum spins out of Unilever: a clearer investment story but a cool valuation

    Iwan Thomas

    Quick Reads

  • Licence to Till: what happens when a ‘Grazing Licence’ is really a tenancy? Accidental tenancies, shams and documents that just don’t do what they say on the tin…

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Georgina Muskett writes for Property Week on the conundrum of green leasing

    Georgina Muskett

    In the Press

  • Paramount launches hostile bid for the entirety of Warner Bros

    Grace Hudson

    Quick Reads

  • Property Patter: Top 5 Changes under the new Renters’ Rights Act 2025

    Lauren Fraser

    Podcasts

  • DMCCA: What the UK’s new consumer rules now mean for consumer facing businesses

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Transactions at an undervalue: trusts of land

    Roger Elford

    Insights

  • Ministry of Sound Limited v. The British Foreign Wharf Company Limited (and ors): Balancing terms of a renewal lease with redevelopment potential

    Grace O'Leary

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises FIRST and its shareholders on sale to Encore

    Mark Howard

    News

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises longstanding client Puma Growth Partners on its investment in HubBox

    Ashwin Pillay

    News

  • Candy Kittens takes a bite as Unilever slims down

    Iwan Thomas

    Quick Reads

  • Autumn Budget 2025 – Inheritance Tax (IHT) and charitable gifts

    Richard Honey

    Insights

  • Advocacy: Lessons from The Mandela Brief for International Arbitration Today

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

  • The Times, City AM and the Daily Mail quote Dan Pollard on government plans to remove the cap on unfair dismissal claims

    Dan Pollard

    In the Press

  • Promises and probate: when is “detriment” worth the family farm and what happens when a promise is only relied on for a defined period?

    Matthew Clark

    Insights

  • UAE CCL Reforms: Introducing Multi-Class Shares, Drag / Tag Rights, Deadlock Solutions and Governance Continuity

    Mo Nawash

    Quick Reads

  • Retail Showcase - Festive Special

    Events

  • Property Week quotes Andrew Ross on the case of Romal Capital v Peel Holdings

    Andrew Ross

    In the Press

Back to top