This regulatory vacuum not only raises questions about the quality of arbitral awards but also places undue strain on parties who seek fair and thorough adjudication of their disputes.
The Problem: Overburdened Arbitrators and Unjust Outcomes
Our firm was recently engaged in an arbitration where the dismissal of a claim was based on an obscure procedural time-bar. The outcome, in our view, was unjustified. Further examination of the circumstances suggested that the arbitrator, who was juggling numerous cases, may have been inclined to expedite the resolution—if not dismissal—of cases to manage their heavy caseload.
This raises a pressing concern: Are arbitrators in DIAC able to devote adequate time and effort to each case under their charge?
Arbitrators currently operate without limits on the number of cases they may undertake. Given that arbitrators receive high fees for each case, this creates a system where arbitrators can prioritize quantity over quality, to the detriment of the parties involved.
The Legal Landscape in DIAC and the UAE
The arbitration framework in Dubai is largely governed by the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018). While this law lays out comprehensive procedural and substantive rules for arbitration, it does not address the workload of arbitrators or set limits on the number of cases an arbitrator can handle. Similarly, DIAC’s procedural rules, most recently updated in 2022, are silent on this issue.
The absence of such regulation stands in stark contrast to the growing caseload of DIAC arbitrators. While the institution has gained global recognition, ensuring the quality and consistency of arbitral awards requires attention to the capacity of individual arbitrators.
International Perspectives on Arbitrator Workload
To address the issue, it is helpful to examine how other leading jurisdictions manage arbitrators’ workloads:
- ICC Arbitration (International Chamber of Commerce): The ICC Rules of Arbitration emphasize case management and procedural efficiency. While they do not impose explicit limits on caseload, arbitrators are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including overcommitment, which might impede their ability to handle a case effectively.
- LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration): The LCIA Rules include provisions requiring arbitrators to ensure availability and capacity before accepting appointments. Arbitrators are held to rigorous disclosure obligations regarding their workload.
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC): SIAC arbitrators are similarly required to confirm their ability to dedicate sufficient time and resources to a matter. Arbitrators who fail to meet these expectations risk removal or replacement.
- UNCITRAL Model Law: While the Model Law does not directly regulate arbitrators’ workloads, it provides a framework for ensuring impartiality and procedural fairness, which can encompass overcommitment concerns.
In these jurisdictions, the commitment to fair and efficient arbitration often includes mechanisms to prevent arbitrators from overextending themselves.
The Need for Reform in DIAC
The UAE’s arbitration framework has made commendable strides in recent years, positioning itself as a global hub for commercial arbitration. However, the absence of regulation on arbitrators’ caseloads poses risks to the integrity of the system.
Key Areas for Reform:
- Mandatory Disclosure: DIAC should require arbitrators to disclose their existing caseloads and affirm their ability to allocate sufficient time and resources to a new case.
- Caseload Caps: Implementing a maximum limit on the number of active cases an arbitrator can handle at a given time could improve the quality and consistency of arbitral awards.
- Accountability Mechanisms: Establishing clearer grounds for challenging awards based on arbitrator neglect or procedural shortcuts would deter arbitrators from overcommitting.
- Enhanced Training and Monitoring: Arbitrators should be required to undergo regular training, and DIAC should monitor the performance of arbitrators to ensure compliance with quality standards.
Conclusion
The Dubai International Arbitration Centre is poised to continue its ascent as a leading arbitration institution. However, with great success comes the responsibility to address systemic vulnerabilities. Limiting arbitrators’ workloads is not just a procedural matter, it is a matter of justice for the parties who entrust their disputes to DIAC.
By learning from the best international practices and implementing workload management measures, DIAC can enhance its reputation for fairness and efficiency. For parties involved in arbitration, this would provide the assurance that their cases are not just processed but genuinely considered and resolved with the care they deserve.
At our firm, we remain committed to advocating for fairness and integrity in arbitration and are prepared to assist parties who seek redress or wish to navigate this evolving landscape.
