The Arbitrator Has Not Been Appointed: Which Court Can Help?

A refusal to agree an arbitrator does not necessarily prevent arbitration from proceeding. Before asking the DIFC Court to appoint one, identify the legal seat and the agreed appointment procedure. An institution may already have the power to resolve the deadlock, while a court application needs its own jurisdictional and procedural basis.

This guide concerns constitution of the tribunal before it can decide the dispute. It does not concern enforcing an award, replacing an arbitrator who has already resigned or obtaining a stay of a substantive court claim. Those situations involve different decisions even where they arise under the same arbitration clause.

What has failed in your arbitrator appointment process?

Describe the failure accurately. One party may have ignored a nomination request. The parties may disagree about a sole arbitrator. Two nominated arbitrators may not have selected a chair. Alternatively, the institution may be waiting for a required document or payment. Calling all of these situations "the other side is blocking arbitration" does not identify the next available step.

Prepare a short dated sequence showing what the mechanism required and what actually occurred. Include agreed extensions. A request that proposes a name but does not ask the other party to take the required step may raise a different issue from a properly framed request met by an express refusal.

Keep the appointment file separate from the commercial merits file. The payment dispute may be substantial, but proving every invoice at this stage will not repair a missing arbitration agreement or an incorrect application route. The immediate objective is a properly constituted tribunal, not an early declaration that the underlying claim succeeds.

Does a reference to Dubai or an institution settle the legal seat?

Not safely without reading the whole agreement and applicable rules. The seat is the legal place of arbitration. It is not necessarily the building where a hearing occurs or the office used by the administrator. A governing-law clause addresses another question and should not be silently substituted for a seat clause.

In Gaetan v Geneva, decided on 16 May 2016, the appointment claim was dismissed with costs. The court first found no enforceable arbitration agreement under the commercial-agency legislation then applicable. It also explained that, even assuming validity, the particular Dubai venue and institutional wording did not select a DIFC seat. The DIFC Court was not the appointing court on that analysis.

That is a historical clause-construction warning, not a current statement that commercial-agency disputes can never be arbitrated. Do not copy the superseded legislation discussed in Gaetan into a present-day advice note. Its institutional context also predates the changes discussed below.

For an arbitration governed by the DIAC Rules 2022, Article 20.1 contains its own sequence. An agreed seat comes first. In the absence of one, an agreed location or venue is treated as the seat unless the parties agree otherwise. Only if neither is agreed does the initial DIFC seat apply, subject to the tribunal's final determination. DIAC administration therefore does not make every arbitration DIFC-seated.

The current courts framework also matters. Article 14(A)(6) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 addresses specified arbitration-related jurisdiction. Have it considered alongside the Arbitration Law's scope and the clause. Do not turn Gaetan's 2016 result into a shortcut around that current analysis.

Should the institution make the appointment before you approach a court?

Where the parties chose institutional arbitration, first identify what the applicable rules already provide for a failed nomination. Under DIAC Rules Article 12, the Arbitration Court makes appointments, with party selections operating as nominations for that purpose. The rules address failures to agree or nominate and mechanisms that cannot operate.

Ask the case administrator what procedural step remains outstanding and obtain a written record. It may be a nomination, response, document or advance on costs. Article 12.8 ties DIAC appointment to payment of the advance on costs in full. A delay at that stage should not automatically be attributed to an opponent's veto over the identity of the arbitrator.

For the DIFC statutory route, Article 17(4) of the published consolidated Arbitration Law addresses failures under an agreed appointment procedure. It preserves an agreed alternative means of securing the appointment. Show your adviser the fallback wording, not just the paragraph containing your preferred nominee's name.

A consensual solution may still be possible. If proposing a different appointment mechanism, record exactly what is being changed and whether the change affects only constitution of this tribunal. Do not assume an exchange about one candidate also changes the seat, the governing law or the scope of the arbitration agreement.

What if a sole arbitrator simply cannot be agreed?

Article 17(3)(b), within its applicable statutory framework, provides a court appointment route where the parties fail to agree a sole arbitrator within 30 days of a request. Article 17(3) is framed for the absence of an agreed appointment procedure to the relevant extent. Do not apply that period indiscriminately to every institutional nomination timetable.

In Perline v Prisha, 21 September 2026, the parties had expressly selected a DIFC seat and a single arbitrator. After a request, extensions and refusal, the court appointed the proposed arbitrator under Article 17(3)(b). The respondent had not engaged with the court proceedings. Its earlier objection about repeat appointments was unparticularised.

The decision does not establish that repeat appointments can never matter. The court treated their relevance as a question of fact and degree and explained why the objection could not be evaluated on that record. If you object to a nominee, identify the facts and raise them through the proper process. A vague complaint followed by silence may leave the decision-maker without a supported reason to reject the appointment.

Key takeaway. A documented appointment failure is useful. A general assertion that you dislike the nominee is not a substitute for identifying the relevant process and the facts supporting the objection.

Prepare the candidate information requested by the applicable process. Confirm relevant qualifications, availability and disclosures without presenting the candidate as your representative on the tribunal. The appointment should enable independent decision-making, not give either side a guaranteed vote on the merits.

What changes if the clause still names the former DIFC-LCIA?

Do not send a new request using an old institutional address merely because it appears in the contract. Dubai Decree No. 34 of 2021 abolished the DIFC Arbitration Institute and made transitional provision for the relevant agreements and proceedings. The present administration route needs a separate check.

The LCIA's published transition notice distinguishes cases commenced and formally registered under a designated DIFC-LCIA number on or before 20 March 2022 from later or unregistered cases. It states that the former are administered by the LCIA from London. The latter are registered and administered by DIAC under its applicable rules unless the parties agree otherwise.

For an older file, collect the request, registration confirmation, case number and correspondence identifying the administrator. A date on a draft request does not establish formal registration. For a new dispute, obtain advice on the clause, the transition arrangements and the process actually available before paying fees or seeking court intervention.

This is not a claim that every question about substituted administration, clause validity or foreign enforcement has one automatic answer. The useful immediate question is narrower: who is presently responsible for administering the appointment in your case, and what evidence establishes that position?

Keep any later agreement between the parties with the original clause. A carefully recorded agreement on administration may be important, but its legal effect should not be assumed from an informal email copied to an institution. Identify who had authority to agree and which matters the parties actually resolved.

What should a DIFC appointment application contain?

RDC Part 43 treats appointment assistance under Article 17 as an arbitration claim. The ordinary starting route is an arbitration claim form using the Part 8 procedure. RDC 43.6 requires the remedy, statutory basis, relevant compliance, parties for service and costs position to be identified. Referring generally to an attached witness statement is not enough under RDC 43.7.

Prepare an evidence bundle around those questions. Include the complete agreement and amendments, appointment provisions, request and delivery record, responses, extensions and any institutional correspondence. Mark the precise step said to have failed. Where the seat or agreement is contested, provide the documents bearing on that issue rather than assuming the court can infer your preferred answer.

Keep court service separate from the earlier arbitration notice. Part 43 contains its own service and acknowledgment requirements. Delivery of a nomination request does not establish service of a later court claim. Ask for the current timetable and proof of each required step, including any directions for service outside Dubai.

Perline also illustrates that costs of the court application need proper judicial treatment. The court declined a proposed route that would bypass its assessment of reasonable and proportionate costs. Do not assume that the eventual arbitrator will automatically determine every charge incurred in the appointment proceedings.

What should you organise while the appointment is being resolved?

1. Identify the seat, institution, rule version and required tribunal size.
2. Map the agreed appointment procedure and every relevant fallback.
3. Preserve the request, delivery evidence, responses and agreed extensions.
4. Resolve outstanding institutional requirements before choosing a court route.
5. Prepare a precise application and evidence if court assistance is appropriate.
6. Maintain the merits evidence and monitor the next arbitration directions.

Do not let an appointment dispute become a reason to stop preserving the commercial records. Witnesses, project documents and payment evidence may be needed once the tribunal is constituted. Keep responsibility for that work clear even where the immediate legal attention is on procedure.

Record what the eventual order actually decides. Appointment is not a judgment that an invoice is payable or that every defence fails. Questions left open should be identified for the tribunal, while any court directions about costs or further steps should be diarised separately.

Common mistake. Applying to a familiar court before checking the agreed institution and legal seat can turn an appointment delay into a separate jurisdiction and costs dispute.

Sources checked on 1 October 2026. This guide uses the officially published December 2013 Arbitration Law consolidation and the September 2026 Perline application of Article 17. The law's detail page carries an inconsistent status label, while the main database lists it among DIFC laws. June 2026 proposals were not treated as enacted amendments. Confirm the operative text before filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the other party prevent arbitration merely by refusing a nominee? Not necessarily. The agreed rules or an applicable statutory court route may provide a way to complete the appointment.

Does choosing DIAC always make the seat the DIFC? No. Article 20.1 of the DIAC Rules prioritises an agreed seat, then the relevant agreed venue. The initial DIFC default applies only where neither is agreed, subject to the tribunal's determination.

Is the 30-day period the same in every arbitration? No. The Article 17(3)(b) route has its own conditions. An agreed institutional procedure may supply a different timetable and appointment mechanism.

Does a party's DIAC nomination itself complete appointment? Under Article 12 of the DIAC Rules, appointments are made by the Arbitration Court. Party selections operate as nominations within that process.

Can I ignore a court application because I already objected by email? No. Preserve your position through the applicable court response procedure. Perline demonstrates the risks of an unparticularised objection followed by non-participation.

Does a former DIFC-LCIA clause mean a new case should be sent to the old centre? Do not assume so. Check the transition arrangements, commencement and registration history and any later agreement before selecting the administrator.

Does Gaetan decide the present law on commercial-agency arbitration? No. Its commercial-agency reasoning applied legislation then in force. This guide uses its appointment and clause-construction history, not that historical statute as current law.

Does appointing the arbitrator decide the underlying payment dispute? No. The appointment constitutes the tribunal for its task. The merits and any issues left open still require determination through the applicable process.

This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about the arbitration agreement, operative legislation, institutional requirements and court procedure in your case.

Related Guides

See the Dubai and DIFC information hub and the guides to an opponent's legal costs bill, an unpaid settlement agreement and a lawyer ceasing to act.

Related Guides

Our arbitration page separates the institution, the seat, the governing law and the enforcement destination, and covers challenges to an award.

• Settlement Signed but Not Paid: Which Agreement and Forum Govern?
• Sued in DIFC Despite an Arbitration Clause: What Do You Do?
• Can I Keep a DFSA Decision Private While I Challenge It?