Joined Up Thinking - Consolidation of arbitration proceedings in the Middle East
Dispute Resolution / Middle East
Paul TaylorPartner, Regional Head of Arbitration
Akbar AliAssociate,Dispute Resolution
International commercial arbitration continues to gain momentum in the Middle East as a preferred means of resolving disputes beyond its traditional roots in the construction sector. The diverse and international nature of the investors, evolving economies, new sectors, and well-established arbitral institutions in the region, coupled with the increased adoption of civil law and common law systems (such as DIFC and ADGM), are collectively considered to be the driving factors to bolster reputation of the Middle East as a preferred destination to invest and agree to arbitrate commercial disputes.
Interestingly, most of the Middle Eastern states have adopted UNCITRAL Model Law in part or in full, reflecting a regional commitment to providing a neutral, efficient, and enforceable alternative to the traditional three-tier civil judicial system in the region.
International commercial arbitration provides parties’ autonomy, confidentiality, procedural flexibility, and the ability to select arbitrators with relevant expertise which is valued and carries substantial weight in the resolution of disputes. In addition to bilateral treaties, accession to Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under New York Convention 1958 (“New York Convention”) by almost all of the Middle Eastern states further enhance investors’ confidence.
Often, where several related contracts or disputes are in play, parties seek consolidation of arbitration proceedings and attempts to clarify legal, procedural, and practical dimensions of combining multiple arbitral disputes into a single process. Its importance lies in addressing complexity of modern commercial relationships, where multi-party and multi-contract disputes are common, and in highlighting how consolidation can promote efficiency, reduce costs, and prevent inconsistent or conflicting awards.
Consolidation of arbitration proceedings is the process of combining two or more separate arbitral proceedings into a single arbitration. The rationale of consolidation is efficiency, consistency, cost effectiveness, and fairness in the overall dispute resolution mechanism. By agreeing to consolidate, parties and practitioners equally benefit from a shared witness testimony, unified legal arguments, coordinated evidence-taking, enhanced case management, fairness, cost savings, comprehensive and collective resolution of disputes expeditiously. In addition, consolidation helps to minimize the risk of inconsistent or contradictory awards that may otherwise arise from parallel or duplicated proceedings. Consolidation is particularly relevant and widely recommended in complex, multi-party, or multi-contract disputes, such as those common in construction, corporate, technology and commercial distributorship related arbitrations.
Most importantly, compatibility of arbitration agreements is a fundamental prerequisite when considering a request for consolidation as it directly impacts the procedural integrity and enforceability of any award.
Whilst consolidation offers significant benefits, it is often subject to some general and specific challenges. As arbitration is fundamentally a consensual process, consolidation of arbitration proceedings requires that consent and often involves different parties, contracts, or issues involved and hence can significantly alter the procedural rights and expectation of the parties.
Most of the institutional rules and national laws either require the express consent of all parties for consolidation or consider it as a critical factor to determine when determining whether or not to order consolidation. The absence of party consent to consolidate raises significant legal and procedural concerns including but not limited to the right to select arbitrators, maintain confidentiality, procedural unfairness, and risk of enforceability of the arbitral awards, as awards issued on the basis of non-consensual consolidation may be challenged or refused enforcement under the New York Convention.
The argument often found in favour of consolidation is that by agreeing to resolve disputes ‘under one roof’ and agreed institutional rules, the parties have taken or construed to have taken into consideration all associated risks and afforded jurisdiction to determine whether to consolidate or not to the arbitral institution and/or arbitral tribunal. The prevailing practice, however, is to prioritize parties’ consent, either expressly or impliedly, as a prerequisite to order consolidation with a view to balance efficiency and consistency, upholding the fundamental principles of parties’ autonomy and due process.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules (2021) address consolidation in Article 10 of its rules. The ICC Court may, at the request of a party, consolidate two or more arbitrations into a single arbitration if (a) the parties have agreed to consolidate; (b) all claims are made under the same arbitration agreement(s); or (c) the claims are not made under the same arbitration agreement(s), but the arbitrations are between the same parties, arise in connection with the same legal relationship, and the ICC Court finds the arbitration agreements compatible. The ICC Court has broad discretion to consider all relevant circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings and the status of composition of the tribunals. When consolidation is granted, the arbitrations are typically consolidated into the arbitration that commenced first, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The ICC’s approach is notable for its detailed criteria and the central role of the ICC Court in making the relevant decisions.
Article 8 of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules (2022) provides a framework for consolidation of arbitration proceedings. DIAC permits consolidation of two or more arbitrations into a single arbitration prior to the appointment of any arbitrator(s), provided that all parties agree, or all claims are made under the same arbitration agreement, or the arbitrations involve the same parties, compatible arbitration agreements, and arise out of the same legal relationship, principal and ancillary contracts, or the same transaction or series of related transactions.
Even if an arbitral tribunal in one arbitration is constituted, consolidation is still possible if no arbitrator has been appointed in the other arbitration(s), or if the same tribunal is constituted in all arbitrations. The decision to consolidate is made by the DIAC Arbitration Court or the arbitral tribunal, depending on what stage such an application is made. Notably, DIAC’s approach is flexible, allowing for consolidation even in complex multi-contract or multi-party scenarios, provided the compatibility and connection between the disputes are clearly established.
The Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration (QICCA) Rules (2024) permit consolidation under Article 10 of its rules. Prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the QICCA may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, consolidate arbitrations involving the same dispute or contract and between the same parties or some of them. After the tribunal is constituted in multiple arbitrations between the same parties, the tribunal itself may request the centre to consolidate the cases. QICCA in consultation with its committee, considers all relevant circumstances, including the similarity of the cases, the relief sought, the status of each case, and the arbitration agreements.
The Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) Rules 2023 set out detailed framework for consolidation in Article 13, pursuant to which the SCCA Court may, at the request of a party or arbitral tribunal, consolidate two or more arbitrations. Generally, consolidation is permitted where the parties have agreed to it, where all claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement(s), or where the claims arise from different but compatible arbitration agreements and the disputes are connected by the same legal relationship. However, if an arbitral tribunal has already been fully constituted in any of the arbitrations, consolidation can only proceed if all parties to all arbitrations agree or if all members of all arbitral tribunals are identical and each tribunal requests consolidation. In deciding whether to consolidate, the SCCA Court considers all relevant circumstances, such as the applicable law, the extent to which the same arbitrators have been appointed, the progress of the arbitrations, whether common issues of law or fact exist, and whether consolidation would promote justice and efficiency. If consolidation is ordered, all parties are deemed to have waived their right to nominate an arbitrator, and the SCCA Court may revoke previous appointments and constitute the tribunal for the consolidated case as it deems appropriate.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules 2025 (SIAC) provide for consolidation in Articles 15 and 16 of its rules. A party may apply for consolidation before the constitution of any tribunal if: (a) all parties agree; (b) all claims are under the same arbitration agreement; or (c) the arbitration agreements are compatible and the disputes arise out of the same legal relationship, principal and ancillary contracts, or the same transaction or series of transactions. The SIAC Court decides on consolidation after considering the parties’ views.
While all of the arbitral institutions considered and prevailing in the region permit consolidation, their approaches vary in terms of powers to make decisions (arbitral institution, court, or tribunal). The timing of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is a critical factor in the consolidation process. Generally, after a tribunal is constituted in one of the arbitrations, consolidation is possible if the same tribunal is constituted in all arbitrations sought to be consolidated.
Most importantly, compatibility of arbitration agreements is a fundamental prerequisite when considering a request for consolidation as it directly impacts the procedural integrity and enforceability of any award issued following the consolidation. When multiple disputes arise from related contracts or transactions, the efficiency and consistency benefits can only be achieved if the arbitration agreements are compatible. For instance, if one arbitration agreement provides Dubai as the seat and the other Qatar as the seat, or provides for a sole arbitrator in one agreement and a tribunal comprising three in another or differs in the language of arbitration, any consolidation becomes not merely procedurally complex but may end up violating original intention of the parties, undermining the legitimacy of the entire process. If consolidation proceeds despite incompatible arbitration agreements, there will be a significant risk of enforceability challenge on the grounds that the composition or arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement, falling within the parameters of Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention to challenge enforcement of arbitral awards. Moreover, consolidation of incompatible arbitration agreements will also jeopardize parties’ autonomy, confidentiality, and the right to appoint arbitrators.
In circumstances where the arbitration agreements are fundamentally incompatible, the arbitral institutions and arbitral tribunals generally preclude consolidation unless all parties expressly agree to reconcile the differences and jointly agree expressly to consolidate the arbitration proceedings.
Across jurisdictions such as DIFC, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore, the issue of consolidation of arbitration proceedings is treated with notable caution. None of the arbitration laws in these jurisdictions provide a statutory mechanism for consolidation. Instead, they uniformly require explicit parties’ agreement in their arbitration agreement or by adopting applicable institutional rules. For instance, Article 26 of the Singapore Arbitration Act 2001 state that consolidation is only possible if the parties agree, and the tribunal shall have, unless agreed to confer such powers, no independent power to order consolidation.
The DIFC, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabian arbitration laws are equally silent on the mechanism to consolidate, thereby leaving the matter in its entirety to parties’ agreement and chosen institutional rules.
Notably, these jurisdictions are parties to the New York Convention and hence failure to compose arbitral tribunal and/or to follow the procedure agreed upon contractually by the parties shall be considered as a valid ground to challenge enforceability of the arbitration award issued on the basis of incompatible arbitration agreements.
Consolidation of arbitration proceedings is generally possible under most of the modern institutional rules and national arbitration laws in line and accordance with the global trend toward greater procedural efficiency and the avoidance of inconsistent or conflicting awards. The leading arbitral institutions used in the region such as ICC, DIAC, QICCA, SIAC and SCCA have provisions to consider consolidation in specific circumstances and where the arbitration agreements are compatible. However, the decision to consolidate is not automatic but a discretionary process.
Given the complexities and potential ramifications, parties must exercise great caution both when applying for, and responding to, consolidation requests.
Most importantly, the drafting of arbitration agreement(s) requires appropriate foresight, close consideration and precision in both commercial and legal contexts where multi-party or multi-contract disputes are foreseeable. Failure to do so will result in significant enforcement risks under New York Convention as well as domestic applicable laws. Notably, courts in the said jurisdictions are particularly vigilant to uphold parties’ autonomy and hence consolidation of incompatible arbitration agreements can clearly jeopardize enforceability of such arbitral award(s). Therefore, while consolidation is a powerful tool for efficient dispute resolution, it must be approached with clear and careful planning, with a thorough understanding of the relevant institutional rules, and a constant awareness of the potential enforcement challenges.
Succinctly, drafting arbitration agreements plays a pivotal role in managing and mitigating the risks associated with consolidation. The nucleus is the principle of parties’ autonomy. A well-drafted arbitration agreement should clearly specify whether consolidation is permitted or not in the first place. If the parties are desirous to consolidate, they must ensure compatibility across all related contracts and set out clear procedural guidance with a view to safeguard enforceability of the relevant award. Failure to do so will end up with parties engaging in costly procedural and enforcement battles and possibly losing the intended benefits out of agreeing to consolidate and to arbitrate in its entirety.
For further information,please contact Paul Taylor and Akbar Ali.
Published in October 2025
