UAE Litigation Funding

Articles, UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding in Dubai: Legal Framework, Disclosure and Risk Management

/

Litigation funding in Dubai operates across several distinct legal and procedural frameworks. A funding arrangement connected with proceedings before the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts is subject to express disclosure rules. Funding in arbitration administered by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre is addressed by Article 22 of the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022. By contrast, litigation funding connected with proceedings before the onshore Dubai Courts is not governed by a single, dedicated third-party funding statute. The practical result is not a uniform Dubai funding regime, but a forum-specific legal architecture. Parties must determine which court supervises the dispute, which procedural rules apply, what must be disclosed, how legal costs may be allocated, and whether the funding agreement preserves the claimant’s authority over counsel and settlement. This distinction matters commercially as well as legally. Litigation funding is not merely a means of paying legal fees. In appropriate cases, it may permit a claimant to transfer part of the financial risk of pursuing a dispute to an external capital provider. However, legal merits alone do not make a claim fundable. Funders ordinarily assess damages, budget proportionality, duration, respondent solvency, enforcement prospects and the terms on which capital can be deployed. What Is Third-Party Litigation Funding? Third-party litigation funding involves an independent funder providing capital to finance some or all of the costs of litigation or arbitration. In return, the funder receives an agreed financial return if the claim produces a recovery. The funding is generally structured on a non-recourse basis. This means that the funder’s entitlement is ordinarily contingent on a successful judgment, award or settlement, subject to the terms of the litigation funding agreement. If the claim fails, the funder will usually lose the capital deployed, although the claimant may remain responsible for liabilities that the agreement does not cover. A litigation funding agreement may finance: Litigation funding must be distinguished from a lawyer’s contingency or success fee. A litigation funder is an external capital provider. A contingency fee concerns the remuneration payable by a client to its legal representative. The two arrangements may coexist, but they engage different legal, ethical and commercial considerations. Dubai’s Forum-Specific Funding Architecture A proper analysis of litigation funding in Dubai should distinguish three principal settings. The first is onshore litigation before the Dubai Courts, which forms part of the UAE’s federal and local civil-law system. The second is litigation before the DIFC Courts, an English-language common-law court system operating within the Dubai International Financial Centre. The third is arbitration, including proceedings administered under the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022. The governing rules depend on the forum and, in arbitration, the seat. The institution administering an arbitration and the juridical seat are separate concepts. DIAC may administer an arbitration seated in the DIFC, onshore Dubai or another jurisdiction, depending on the parties’ agreement and the operation of the applicable rules. This distinction affects supervisory jurisdiction, applications for interim relief, annulment proceedings, confidentiality, costs and enforcement. Litigation Funding in the DIFC Courts The DIFC Courts expressly address third-party funding through Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 on Third Party Funding in the DIFC Courts.[1] The Practice Direction applies to funded parties involved in DIFC Court proceedings and defines funding broadly as financial assistance that may confer an economic benefit on the funder linked to the outcome of the proceedings. It therefore focuses on the substance of the arrangement rather than a particular financing label. Disclosure of the Funding Arrangement A funded party must notify every other party that it has entered into a litigation funding agreement. The notice must disclose the identity of the funder.[1] The obligation does not ordinarily require production of the funding agreement or disclosure of its commercial terms. The DIFC Courts may, however, order disclosure where appropriate. For Part 7 claims, notice is generally given in the Case Management Information Sheet before the case management conference. Where the agreement is entered into after that conference, written notice must be served on the other parties and the Registry within seven days. For other types of claim, notice must be given as soon as practicable after proceedings commence or, where funding is obtained during the proceedings, within seven days of the agreement.[1] The distinction between disclosing the existence and identity of funding and disclosing the complete agreement is important. Identification of the funder assists the Court and the parties in detecting conflicts. Routine production of the agreement could expose confidential information about litigation budgets, termination rights, settlement procedures and the claimant’s assessment of risk. Security for Costs The existence of third-party funding may be relevant to an application for security for costs, but it is not determinative by itself. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 expressly provides that the DIFC Courts may consider funding when deciding a security application while cautioning against treating funding alone as sufficient.[1] The DIFC Court of Appeal reinforced this approach in LXT Real Estate Broker LLC v SIR Real Estate LLC. The Court explained that the relevant analysis may include the substance of the arrangement, the funder’s financial capacity and the extent of any commitment to meet adverse costs. A presumption that funded litigation automatically warrants security would be inconsistent with the Court’s discretionary assessment.[2] For funded parties, this makes the drafting of adverse-cost provisions commercially significant. The claimant should understand whether the funder will provide an indemnity, obtain after-the-event insurance, support a bank guarantee or leave the claimant responsible for security and adverse costs. Potential Costs Exposure of Funders Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 states that the DIFC Courts have inherent jurisdiction to make costs orders against third parties, including funders, where appropriate.[1] The precise jurisdictional basis and circumstances in which a non-party order may be made should not be overstated. In Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v Neopharma LLC and Others, the Court observed that a practice direction could not itself create a legislative source of jurisdiction and left the wider question for determination in a case involving fully developed argument.[3] Accordingly, funder exposure should be assessed by

The Intersection of Arbitration and Litigation Funding in the GCC
Arbitration & Cross-Border Funding, Thought Leadership, UAE Litigation Funding

The Intersection of Arbitration and Litigation Funding in the GCC

/

Regulatory Evolution, Institutional Rules and the UAE’s Emerging Leadership Third-party funding is becoming an increasingly important component of commercial dispute resolution in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Under a conventional third-party funding arrangement, an external funder finances some or all of a party’s legal fees and dispute-related expenses in return for an agreed share of the proceeds if the claim succeeds. The funding is generally non-recourse: when the funded claim is unsuccessful, the funder ordinarily loses the capital it deployed, subject to the specific terms of the agreement. Although third-party funding was once approached cautiously in many jurisdictions, it is gradually becoming integrated into the region’s arbitration framework. Modern arbitral institutions increasingly recognise the existence of funding and impose rules concerning disclosure, conflicts of interest and procedural transparency. The United Arab Emirates has emerged as a particularly significant jurisdiction in this development. Its distinctive combination of onshore civil-law courts, the common-law systems of the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market, and internationally oriented arbitration institutions has created several possible frameworks for funded disputes. The result is not one unified funding regime, but an evolving legal environment in which the validity, disclosure requirements and contractual safeguards applicable to funding depend heavily on the jurisdiction, arbitral rules and dispute-resolution mechanism selected by the parties. Why arbitration funding is gaining relevance in the GCC Commercial arbitration can be expensive. Large disputes in construction, infrastructure, energy, real estate and cross-border trade may continue for several years. They frequently require specialist legal counsel, technical experts, forensic accountants, document-management platforms and enforcement strategies covering more than one jurisdiction. A company may possess a strong contractual or commercial claim but still be reluctant to allocate substantial working capital to a lengthy arbitration with an uncertain outcome. Third-party funding can address this challenge by transferring part of the financial risk to an external capital provider. For businesses, the attraction is not limited to financial distress. A solvent company may use funding to preserve cash, reduce the effect of legal expenditure on its operating budget and continue investing in its core business. Funding may therefore be used as: This evolution is changing the way corporate parties view legal claims. Rather than treating every dispute exclusively as a cost centre, a company may assess whether a strong claim can be financed, shared or monetised as a contingent asset. The publication of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Guideline on Third-Party Funding in September 2025 reflects the growing international acceptance of this development. The Guideline was designed to provide practitioners with a clearer understanding of the funding process and addresses issues including disclosure, conflicts, privilege, control, termination and costs.[1] The UAE’s three-part legal environment The UAE presents a distinctive legal structure for third-party funding. It includes: The treatment of funding differs significantly across these systems. This distinction matters because parties cannot assume that a funding arrangement structured for one UAE forum will automatically satisfy the requirements of another. Third-party funding in onshore UAE disputes There is no single dedicated federal statute comprehensively regulating third-party funding before the onshore UAE courts or in every onshore-seated arbitration. The absence of a specialised funding law does not necessarily mean that funding is prohibited. Funding arrangements must instead be evaluated under the UAE’s general contractual framework, applicable public-policy principles, professional obligations and the rules of the institution administering the arbitration. The UAE Federal Arbitration Law does not establish a comprehensive third-party funding regime. As a result, the parties must consider the governing law of the funding agreement, the arbitral rules selected in the underlying contract and any issues relating to confidentiality, conflicts and the independence of legal counsel. The regulation of lawyers’ fees must also be distinguished from external litigation funding. Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2022 regulates the legal profession, while Cabinet Resolution No. 8 of 2025 provides its Executive Regulations. Article 31 of the Executive Regulations permits a lawyer’s fees to be calculated as a percentage of the claimed right, provided that the percentage does not exceed 25% and the specified statutory conditions are satisfied.[2] A lawyer’s percentage-based fee arrangement is not identical to third-party funding. In the former, the legal representative assumes an element of fee risk. In the latter, an independent capital provider ordinarily finances legal and related expenses in return for a contingent economic return. Nevertheless, the clearer treatment of percentage-based lawyers’ fees may support the development of hybrid dispute-financing structures, provided that every component complies with applicable professional, contractual and public-policy requirements. Third-party funding in the DIFC Courts The DIFC Courts were among the first courts in the region to establish an express framework for third-party funding. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 applies to funded proceedings before the DIFC Courts. It requires the funded party to notify every other party and the DIFC Courts Registry that a litigation funding agreement exists and to disclose the funder’s identity.[3] The commercial terms of the funding agreement do not ordinarily have to be disclosed unless the Court orders otherwise. This framework adopts a comparatively light-touch approach. It does not create an extensive licensing regime for funders or prescribe every term that must appear in a funding agreement. Instead, it focuses on procedural transparency and the Court’s ability to manage matters such as conflicts and costs. The DIFC Courts’ Mandatory Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners reinforces the independence of counsel. A practitioner must not allow a funder’s interests or instructions to displace the practitioner’s professional duties to the client, unless the client has provided appropriate written authorisation.[4] The DIFC framework therefore rests on several central principles: The DIFC Courts have also affirmed in recent decisions that the existence and identity of a funder must be disclosed, while the underlying agreement remains private unless disclosure is ordered.[5] The more prescriptive ADGM framework The ADGM has adopted a more detailed statutory approach. The ADGM Litigation Funding Rules 2019 regulate litigation funding agreements within the ADGM framework. The Rules were subsequently amended in 2023 and remain part of the ADGM Courts’ published

UAE Litigation Funding

Comparative Analysis of Litigation Funding Frameworks in the DIFC and ADGM: A Strategic Legal and Regulatory Assessment

/

Constitutional Foundations and the Sharia Context The judicial landscape of the United Arab Emirates operates on a dual-tier structure that divides the domestic civil law “onshore” jurisdictions from the common law “offshore” financial free zones1. While the federal civil courts are heavily influenced by Sharia jurisprudence, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) operate as independent, self-contained judicial enclaves4. These offshore centers have established their own civil and commercial laws, procedural rules, and specialized infant judiciaries designed to align with international standards4. Understanding how these two jurisdictions approach third-party litigation funding (TPF) requires an examination of their constitutional foundations and their relationship with both domestic Sharia principles and English common law8. In the onshore UAE courts, TPF is not governed by any dedicated statutory framework1. While not explicitly prohibited, its validity under onshore law remains a complex question of public policy1. Under Sharia law, financial transactions must avoid riba (usury or unjust interest), gharar (excessive speculation or uncertainty), and maisir (gambling or games of chance)1. Onshore litigation funding arrangements must be carefully structured to avoid these prohibitions1. Legal scholars and practitioners argue that commercial litigation funding does not violate Sharia principles when structured as a non-recourse investment rather than a speculative bet or an interest-bearing loan2. This is supported by the Sharia principle of maslaha (public interest), which recognizes TPF as a tool that provides access to justice for economically disadvantaged claimants2. However, because onshore courts award only nominal legal costs to successful parties, a funder’s return cannot easily be recouped from the losing opponent3. This commercial reality makes onshore litigation funding rare and highly risky3. Conversely, the offshore jurisdictions of the DIFC and the ADGM have established clear rules for TPF1. Both jurisdictions have moved away from the historical English common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty—which once prohibited third-party funding to prevent speculative litigation8. The DIFC and ADGM courts recognize that TPF supports access to justice and allows corporate litigants to manage legal risk off-balance sheet8. However, the legal mechanism through which English law is integrated differs between the two zones4. The ADGM directly imports English common law, including the rules of equity and specific English statutes, “in force in England” via the Application of English Law Regulations 20154. The DIFC, on the other hand, drafts its own independent statutes modeled on English common law principles, using English precedents primarily as persuasive authority4. The UAE litigation funding landscape differs significantly between the onshore UAE courts, the Dubai International Financial Centre, and the Abu Dhabi Global Market. The onshore UAE courts operate under a civil law system influenced by Sharia principles. Third-party litigation funding is not regulated by a dedicated statutory framework, although it is not expressly prohibited. Its validity depends on general contract law, public policy considerations, and careful structuring to avoid issues such as riba, gharar, or maisir. Cost recovery in the onshore courts is generally limited, which makes litigation funding commercially more difficult in practice. The Dubai International Financial Centre, or DIFC, operates as an independent common law jurisdiction with its own courts and procedural rules. Third-party funding is expressly permitted under Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017. The DIFC adopts a disclosure-based and flexible approach, allowing parties to use litigation funding while requiring transparency regarding the existence of the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder. The Abu Dhabi Global Market, or ADGM, also operates as an independent common law jurisdiction, but it directly applies English common law through its own legal framework. Third-party litigation funding is expressly permitted and regulated under the ADGM Litigation Funding Rules 2019. Compared with the DIFC, the ADGM framework is more prescriptive and includes specific requirements relating to funder eligibility, capitalization, mandatory contractual terms, and conflicts management. In practical terms, the DIFC offers greater contractual flexibility, while the ADGM provides a more codified and structured regulatory model. Both jurisdictions are more developed than the onshore UAE courts in their treatment of litigation funding. Funder Eligibility and Capitalization Requirements The regulatory frameworks of the DIFC and the ADGM diverge significantly in their approach to funder eligibility and capitalization requirements14. The DIFC uses a light-touch regulatory model that does not impose net-asset requirements or institutional licensing on third-party funders14. Under Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 (PD 2/2017), a “Funder” is defined as any person or entity independent from the funded party and their legal representatives that provides funding in exchange for an economic benefit linked to the outcome of the proceedings21. This broad definition permits corporate parents, boutique investment funds, or private individuals to act as funders14. The DIFC court relies on party autonomy and professional legal ethics to manage funder competence and liquidity14. In contrast, the ADGM uses a prescriptive, statutory approach designed to ensure the institutional credibility and solvency of funders operating in its jurisdiction23. Under the ADGM Litigation Funding Rules 2019, a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) is valid and enforceable only if the funding entity satisfies strict statutory criteria9: Mandatory Provisions of Litigation Funding Agreements The contractual freedom of parties to draft LFAs is structured differently in each jurisdiction14. In the DIFC, the court does not mandate specific contractual clauses or regulate risk allocation, termination rights, or settlement vetoes14. Under PD 2/2017, these elements are left to commercial negotiation and professional judgment14. While this provides flexibility, it places a higher drafting burden on legal practitioners to ensure that the LFA remains enforceable and does not trigger common law objections14. The ADGM Litigation Funding Rules 2019 reject this laissez-faire model, requiring specific mandatory provisions to be included in the text of any LFA23. If these statutory terms are omitted, the agreement may be declared unenforceable9. An ADGM-compliant LFA must be in writing and contain clear provisions addressing the following elements: The DIFC and ADGM take different approaches to funder eligibility and capitalization. In the DIFC, there is no prescribed minimum capitalization requirement for litigation funders. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 defines a funder broadly as an independent person or

Articles, UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding in Dubai: How WinJustice Supports International Arbitration Claims

/

Introduction: Litigation Funding and the Cost of Justice in Dubai Dispute resolution in Dubai has become increasingly sophisticated. Commercial parties rely on litigation, arbitration, mediation, and other dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve complex matters involving contracts, construction projects, real estate, finance, technology, shareholder relationships, and cross-border transactions. However, legal proceedings can be expensive. A party with a strong claim may still face significant financial barriers, including lawyers’ fees, court or arbitration fees, expert fees, translation costs, document management costs, hearing costs, and enforcement expenses. In high-value disputes, these costs may continue for months or years. This is where litigation funding becomes essential. At WinJustice, we provide litigation funding solutions for individuals and businesses involved in legal proceedings. As the first UAE-based litigation funding firm dedicated exclusively to dispute finance, we help claimants pursue meritorious claims without bearing the full financial burden of litigation or arbitration from the outset. Our role is simple: we fund suitable legal claims so that claimants can pursue justice, preserve liquidity, and manage legal cost risk in a structured and commercially responsible way. What Is Litigation Funding? Litigation funding, also known as third-party funding or dispute finance, is an arrangement where an independent funder pays some or all of a party’s legal costs in exchange for a success-based return. In practical terms, the funder finances the case. If the case succeeds, the funder receives an agreed return from the amount recovered. If the case fails, the funder usually loses its investment, provided the funding is structured on a non-recourse basis. Litigation funding may be used in court litigation, arbitration, enforcement proceedings, commercial claims, construction disputes, shareholder disputes, insolvency-related claims, and other high-value legal matters. Litigation funding is not the same as a bank loan. A loan usually requires repayment regardless of the outcome. Litigation funding is generally outcome-based. The funder’s return depends on the success of the case, the recovery obtained, and the terms of the funding agreement. What Is Arbitration Funding? Arbitration funding is a form of litigation funding used specifically for arbitration proceedings. International arbitration can be costly because parties may need to pay lawyers’ fees, arbitration institution fees, arbitrator fees, expert witness fees, hearing costs, translation costs, and enforcement-related expenses. Arbitration funding allows a claimant to pursue an arbitration claim with financial support from a third-party funder. In return, the funder receives an agreed return if the claim succeeds through an arbitral award, settlement, or other recovery. This is particularly relevant in Dubai because many commercial and cross-border contracts contain arbitration clauses. These clauses may refer disputes to institutions such as the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, known as DIAC, or to other international arbitration institutions depending on the contract. How Litigation Funding Works in Dubai Litigation funding in Dubai usually follows a structured process. First, the claimant or its lawyer presents the dispute to us. This includes the facts of the case, the legal basis of the claim, the amount claimed, available evidence, the identity of the respondent, and information about whether the respondent has assets that may be used to satisfy a judgment or arbitral award. Second, we assess the legal and commercial strength of the claim. This includes reviewing whether the case has good prospects of success, whether the damages are substantial enough, whether the expected legal costs are proportionate, and whether any final judgment or arbitral award can realistically be enforced. Third, if the case is suitable, we may offer funding terms. These terms explain what costs may be funded, how our return will be calculated, what happens if the claim settles, what happens if the claim fails, and what information must be shared during the case. Fourth, once the funding agreement is signed, we fund the agreed costs in accordance with the funding arrangement. The case then proceeds through litigation, arbitration, settlement discussions, or enforcement. Finally, if the claim succeeds, we receive our agreed return from the recovered amount. If the claim fails, the claimant generally does not repay us under a non-recourse funding structure, unless the funding agreement provides otherwise. Why WinJustice Is Important in the UAE Litigation Funding Market WinJustice is the first UAE-based litigation funding firm dedicated exclusively to dispute finance. This matters because litigation funding is still developing in the Middle East and North Africa. Many businesses in the region are familiar with litigation and arbitration, but less familiar with third-party dispute finance. As a UAE-based funder, we help bridge that gap by offering funding solutions connected to the local legal, commercial, and enforcement environment. Our work is especially relevant for claimants who have strong legal claims but do not want to use operational cash flow to finance lengthy proceedings. This may include individuals, SMEs, financially distressed companies, investors, and corporations involved in commercial or international disputes. By providing capital for suitable claims, we help transform legal claims from immediate financial burdens into managed legal assets. What Costs Can WinJustice Fund? The exact scope of funding depends on the case and the funding agreement. In suitable matters, litigation or arbitration funding may cover several categories of cost. Cost Category Possible Coverage Legal fees Lawyers’ fees for preparing and conducting the claim Court or arbitration fees Filing fees, administrative fees, and institutional charges Arbitrator fees Fees payable to arbitral tribunals in arbitration proceedings Expert fees Technical, financial, valuation, construction, forensic, or legal expert costs Procedural costs Translation, document management, hearing preparation, travel, and logistics Enforcement costs Costs of enforcing a judgment or arbitral award Adverse costs exposure In some cases, the funding structure may address the risk of paying the opponent’s costs This allows the claimant to focus on the merits of the dispute while the financial burden is managed through a funding arrangement. Litigation Funding and Non-Recourse Funding One of the most important features of litigation funding is that it is often provided on a non-recourse basis. Non-recourse funding means that if the funded claim fails, the claimant usually does not repay the funder. The funder accepts the risk of losing the money invested

UAE Litigation Funding

The Future of Arbitration Funding in the United Arab Emirates: A Strategic Analysis for Global Business

/

The legal and financial ecosystem of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is currently undergoing a structural transformation that positions it as a global frontier for third-party arbitration funding (TPF). Historically characterized by a cautious approach to external litigation finance, the jurisdiction has rapidly modernized its regulatory, institutional, and judicial frameworks to accommodate the complexities of international commercial disputes.1 This evolution is driven by a convergence of legislative reform, such as the Federal Arbitration Law of 2018, and the proactive adoption of sophisticated funding rules by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD).3 For businesses operating in capital-intensive sectors like construction, energy, and real estate, understanding the nuances of this landscape is no longer optional but a strategic imperative for risk management and liquidity optimization.1 The Jurisdictional Triality: Mapping the UAE Arbitration Landscape The UAE presents a unique “tri-partite” legal architecture consisting of the onshore civil law system and two offshore common law jurisdictions: the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).6 Each of these jurisdictions maintains distinct rules regarding third-party funding, creating a dynamic environment where the choice of the arbitral seat fundamentally dictates the enforceability and disclosure requirements of a funding arrangement.5 Onshore Civil Law Framework and Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 Onshore arbitration is governed by Federal Decree Law No. 6 of 2018 (the Federal Arbitration Law), which serves as the default procedural law for any arbitration conducted in the UAE, provided the parties have not agreed to a different set of laws.9 While the law does not explicitly regulate third-party funding, its silence is widely interpreted as permissive, provided the funding agreement does not contravene public policy or morals.11 The law emphasizes party autonomy, particularly in Article 4(3), which allows parties to authorize a third party to select arbitral procedures.9 This procedural flexibility suggests that as long as the funder does not exercise “undue control” over the legal process, the funding relationship remains valid under general contract principles.7 The Common Law Enclaves: DIFC and ADGM The DIFC and ADGM have emerged as the primary engines for TPF growth due to their alignment with international common law standards.8 The DIFC Courts, through Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, provided a structured definition of “Funding” and “Funded Parties,” emphasizing transparency through mandatory disclosure of the funder’s identity.17 In contrast, the ADGM’s Litigation Funding Rules of 2019 are more prescriptive, requiring funders to possess qualifying assets of at least $5 million and mandating that funding agreements be in writing.6 These offshore regulations provide the predictability required by institutional funders such as Burford Capital and Omni Bridgeway, who seek to mitigate the “uncertainty risk” historically associated with regional courts.6 Jurisdictional Feature Onshore UAE (Civil Law) DIFC (Common Law) ADGM (Common Law) Governing Arbitration Statute Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008 ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 Primary TPF Regulation None (Permitted by Practice) Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 Litigation Funding Rules 2019 Mandatory Disclosure Case-by-case basis Existence and Funder Identity Existence and Funder Identity Funder Financial Threshold No statutory limit No statutory limit Minimum $5 Million in Assets Default Seat (Rules-based) Dubai (per DIAC 2007) DIFC (per DIAC 2022) ADGM (per arbitrateAD) 3 Institutional Maturation: Analyzing DIAC 2022 and arbitrateAD 2024 The institutionalization of TPF in the UAE reached a pivotal moment with the overhaul of arbitral rules in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. These changes reflect a desire to position the UAE as a leading global hub, competitive with Singapore and Hong Kong.4 The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules 2022 Article 22 of the DIAC Rules 2022 represents one of the most significant codifications of TPF practice in the region.3 The rule requires a party to “promptly disclose” the existence of a third-party funding arrangement to all other parties and the Centre.25 A nuanced requirement within Article 22.1 is the obligation to disclose whether the funder has committed to an “adverse costs liability”.25 This provides tribunals with critical information for potential security for costs applications, as a funder’s commitment to pay adverse costs can serve as a substitute for a bank guarantee or escrow payment.6 Furthermore, Article 22.2 introduces a safeguard against conflicts of interest.25 It prohibits parties from entering into a funding arrangement after the tribunal’s constitution if the arrangement would create a conflict between the funder and any member of the tribunal.25 This mirrors the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest and ensures that the eventual award remains insulated from challenges based on arbitrator impartiality.26 The Emergence of arbitrateAD in Abu Dhabi The transition from the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) to the new Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) in early 2024 has further clarified the funding landscape.4 Under Article 48 of the arbitrateAD Rules, the duty to disclose funding is ongoing throughout the life of the proceedings.4 This institutional shift is supported by a default seat in the ADGM, which grants parties access to the ADGM’s comprehensive litigation funding framework and its evergreen application of English common law.7 The Strategic Shift: TPF as a Corporate Financial Instrument For modern businesses, third-party funding has evolved from a “distressed” financing tool into a sophisticated method for managing corporate balance sheets.1 The use of external capital allows companies to pursue high-value claims without diverting funds from their core operations, effectively turning a legal dispute from an expense into a potential revenue-generating asset.1 Access to Justice for SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UAE often find themselves in disputes with much larger, better-capitalized entities, such as sovereign-linked developers or global conglomerates.2 The costs of a major arbitration, including tribunal fees, expert costs, and legal representation, can be prohibitive.34 TPF levels the playing field by providing the financial muscle necessary to sustain a long-term legal battle.2 This is increasingly seen as a “strategic value” by boards of directors, who can now evaluate litigation through the same lens as any other investment opportunity.5 Judicial Evolution: The Recoverability

UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding: Law, Practice, and Market Evolution (2026) in the UAE

/

The landscape of litigation funding in the United Arab Emirates has undergone a profound transformation as of 2026, shifting from a nascent financial practice to a cornerstone of the regional dispute resolution ecosystem. This evolution is inextricably linked to the UAE’s strategic objective of establishing itself as a premier global hub for commerce, a goal that has necessitated a sophisticated, predictable, and transparent legal framework capable of supporting high-value, complex litigation and arbitration. The current year, 2026, marks the convergence of several major legislative cycles, most notably the implementation of the new Civil Transactions Act, significant amendments to the Federal Civil Procedures Law, and a refined maturity within the common law courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre and the Abu Dhabi Global Market. As international capital continues to flow into the region’s infrastructure, energy, and technology sectors, the role of third-party litigation funding has transcended simple capital provision, becoming an essential risk-management tool for global corporations and a vital mechanism for ensuring access to justice for individual litigants. The Tripartite Judicial Architecture as a Foundation for Finance The legal framework of the UAE in 2026 is defined by its unique tripartite structure, which offers three distinct but increasingly integrated avenues for dispute resolution. This structure consists of the “onshore” or mainland civil law courts and the two “offshore” common law financial free zones. For a litigation funder, understanding the nuances of these jurisdictions is the primary step in evaluating any investment opportunity, as each forum presents different rules regarding disclosure, cost recoverability, and procedural speed.1 The onshore system, which applies to the vast majority of civil and commercial activities outside the financial free zones, is rooted in the civil law tradition. Historically, this system was influenced by the Egyptian model, which was itself derived from the French Napoleonic Code. By 2026, the onshore courts have achieved a high degree of modernization, characterized by the comprehensive digitization of proceedings and a pragmatic acceptance of litigation funding, provided such arrangements do not violate public policy or professional ethics.1 While third-party funding is not expressly governed by a single statute onshore, it is permitted under the broader principles of contractual freedom, provided that the funder does not exert excessive control over the proceedings in a manner that would resemble the common law prohibitions of champerty or maintenance.1 In contrast, the DIFC and ADGM offer common law environments that are specifically designed to be familiar to international investors. The DIFC has developed its own body of case law and legislation, based on English common law principles but tailored to the local environment.5 The ADGM, meanwhile, takes a more direct approach by adopting English common law as its foundational law, supplemented by its own specific regulations.5 These offshore jurisdictions have been proactive in regulating litigation funding, providing the explicit guidance that the onshore system currently lacks.2 Judicial Forum Legal Origin Procedural Language Role of Third-Party Funding (2026) Onshore UAE Civil Law / Sharia Arabic Permitted if compliant with public policy 1 DIFC Common Law (Autonomous) English Regulated via Practice Directions 2 ADGM English Common Law (Direct) English Formally regulated via 2019/2023 Rules 6   Onshore Legislative Reforms: The 2025 and 2026 Paradigm Shift The year 2026 represents a landmark in the evolution of the onshore judiciary, driven by the implementation of Federal Decree-Law No. 22 of 2025, which introduced sweeping amendments to the Civil Procedures Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022).8 These reforms reflect a deliberate move toward procedural discipline, judicial specialization, and a reduction in the “serial appeals” that previously characterized mainland litigation.8 For litigation funders, these changes significantly enhance the “predictability factor,” which is a core component of their internal rate of return calculations. One of the most significant developments is the establishment of specialized judicial chambers for technically complex disputes, such as those involving inheritance, construction, or high-value commercial transactions.8 Under Article 32 of the amended framework, the President of the Federal Judicial Council or the head of a local judicial authority can constitute these chambers, which are empowered to appoint international experts and direct more rigorous evidentiary reviews.8 Crucially, judgments issued by these specialized chambers are, in many instances, not subject to ordinary avenues of appeal, marking a shift toward the finality of first-instance decisions when technical rigor is applied from the outset.8 Furthermore, the 2026 reforms have heightened the thresholds for initiating appeals. Article 164 now requires that any appeal filed must include a clear statement of the grounds and the relief sought at the time of submission.8 This has effectively abolished the previous practice where appellants could file a “placeholder” appeal and supplement the grounds at the first hearing.8 For a funder, this reduces the risk of unmeritorious, delay-tactic appeals that erode the value of an award over time. The expansion of cassation review under Article 175 and 176 to include interlocutory decisions also allows for the early correction of procedural errors, potentially saving years of litigation time in complex cases.8 The Role of Court-Appointed Experts in Onshore Litigation A defining feature of the onshore system remains the decisive influence of court-appointed experts. In technical matters—which comprise the majority of funded claims—the court-appointed expert acts as a quasi-judicial figure, conducting investigations, reviewing documentary evidence, and meeting with the parties to the dispute.1 By 2026, the governance of these experts has been strengthened by Federal Decree Law No. 21 of 2022, ensuring professional accountability.1 While the expert’s findings are technically not binding on the judge, they are followed in the vast majority of cases.1 This has led to a sophisticated practice where litigation funders employ “shadow experts” or private consultants to assist the funded party in managing the interface with the court expert.9 The 2026 landscape is defined by the integration of technology into this process, with experts utilizing AI-assisted translation and digital filings to manage the voluminous documentation typical of construction or banking disputes.1 Procedural Aspect Onshore Practice (2026) Significance for Funders Expert Witnesses Court-appointed from a registry 1 High impact on outcome; requires “shadow” expert

From Legal Tool to Boardroom Strategy-
Thought Leadership, UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding Is No Longer “Alternative” – It Is Core Dispute Strategy

/

Three years ago, the phrase “third-party litigation funding” was often mentioned cautiously within corporate legal departments, as if it carried an implicit admission of financial constraint or strategic weakness. Today, that hesitation has disappeared. Litigation funding is now openly discussed in boardrooms, integrated into enterprise risk reports, and evaluated alongside traditional financial instruments. This transformation is not merely linguistic or cultural—it reflects a deeper structural shift in how disputes are understood, financed, and strategically deployed. What was once considered an alternative mechanism has become a central component of dispute strategy, fundamentally reshaping the intersection between law, finance, and access to justice. This evolution is particularly evident in how litigation funding has moved from the periphery of legal practice into the core decision-making framework of sophisticated corporates. In the past, funding was perceived as a tool of necessity, primarily used by claimants who lacked the financial resources to pursue litigation. Today, it is increasingly used by well-capitalized companies that choose to deploy external capital as part of a broader financial strategy. Litigation is no longer viewed solely as a cost center or a reactive process; it is now treated as a financial asset that can be structured, leveraged, and optimized. In this context, litigation funding sits comfortably alongside insurance solutions, settlement planning, and corporate finance tools, forming part of a comprehensive approach to managing legal risk and opportunity. The institutionalization of the litigation funding market has further reinforced this shift. Funders are no longer informal or opportunistic participants; they operate as highly sophisticated financial actors equipped with advanced risk assessment models, portfolio diversification strategies, and deep legal expertise. Their role extends beyond simply providing capital—they actively contribute to the strategic evaluation of claims, bringing a level of financial discipline and analytical rigor that aligns litigation with broader investment principles. This development reflects a wider trend in which legal disputes are increasingly analyzed through a financial lens, where probability of success, enforcement prospects, and return on investment are considered alongside legal merits. One of the most significant indicators of this transformation is the changing profile of decision-makers within organizations. While General Counsel continue to play a critical role, the involvement of Chief Financial Officers and treasury teams has become increasingly prominent. High-value disputes are now assessed not only in terms of legal strategy but also in relation to balance sheet impact, cash flow management, and capital allocation. CFOs recognize that litigation funding can convert uncertain legal costs into structured financial arrangements, thereby preserving liquidity and improving financial predictability. This perspective aligns with the broader understanding that companies often pursue funding not out of necessity, but as a deliberate strategy to manage risk and optimize resource allocation . At the same time, the growing integration of litigation funding into corporate strategy has important implications for access to justice. Traditionally, access to the legal system has been constrained by financial capacity, creating an imbalance between well-resourced defendants and underfunded claimants. Litigation funding has the potential to correct this imbalance by enabling financially constrained but legally strong parties to pursue complex and high-value claims. This is particularly relevant in cases involving small and medium-sized enterprises, collective actions, and cross-border disputes, where the cost and duration of litigation would otherwise be prohibitive. In this sense, litigation funding is not merely a financial innovation—it is a mechanism that can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system. The historical trajectory of litigation funding underscores the significance of this development. What began as a practice viewed with suspicion under doctrines such as maintenance and champerty has gradually evolved into a legitimate and regulated component of modern legal systems. Courts and legislatures have increasingly recognized that, when properly structured, third-party funding serves a legitimate purpose by facilitating access to justice and supporting the efficient resolution of disputes . This shift from prohibition to acceptance reflects a broader recognition that the legal system must adapt to the economic realities of contemporary litigation. In jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates, this evolution is particularly visible. The coexistence of civil law courts and common law jurisdictions such as the DIFC and ADGM has created a dynamic environment in which litigation funding can develop in different ways. While the onshore system remains less active in this space, offshore jurisdictions provide a more structured and predictable framework that is attractive to international funders. At the same time, important considerations remain, including issues of disclosure, confidentiality, and the preservation of legal privilege. These factors highlight that the growth of litigation funding must be accompanied by careful attention to legal and ethical safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the legal process is maintained . Despite its growing acceptance, litigation funding is not universally appropriate, and its use requires careful judgment. The decision to fund a dispute should be based on a clear assessment of legal merits, economic value, and enforceability. Strong cases that are capital-intensive, involve complex evidence, or span multiple jurisdictions are often well-suited to funding structures. In such cases, funding can align the interests of the claimant, counsel, and funder, creating a framework that supports both strategic litigation and financial efficiency. Conversely, cases that are speculative, lack clear economic outcomes, or raise significant conflicts of interest may not be suitable for funding. The increasing sophistication of the market means that both clients and funders must approach these decisions with a high degree of transparency and discipline. Ultimately, the normalization of litigation funding represents both an opportunity and a responsibility. On one hand, it offers a powerful tool for managing legal risk, unlocking value, and expanding access to justice. On the other hand, it raises important questions about governance, ethics, and the role of financial actors in the legal system. As funding becomes more deeply embedded in dispute strategy, the standards applied to funders, law firms, and clients must evolve accordingly. Transparency, independence, and client-centricity are no longer optional—they are essential to maintaining trust in the system. For WinJustice, this moment marks a defining point in the evolution of the industry.

Articles, UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding in the UAE: How It Works, Where It’s Permitted, and Where It’s Headed (2026 Outlook)

/

Litigation (and arbitration) in the UAE can be fast-moving, commercially significant, and expensive—especially for cross-border disputes, shareholder conflicts, construction claims, and high-value commercial matters. Against that backdrop, litigation funding (often called third-party funding or “TPF”) has become an increasingly practical tool: it allows a claimant (or sometimes a respondent) to pursue or defend a case without paying legal costs upfront, in exchange for sharing a portion of the proceeds if the case succeeds. In the UAE, the most developed funding frameworks sit within the common-law financial free zones—DIFC (Dubai International Financial Centre) and ADGM (Abu Dhabi Global Market)—and in institutional arbitration, notably under the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022. This article explains what litigation funding is, how it works in practice, the UAE’s current legal positioning (DIFC, ADGM, arbitration, and “onshore” UAE), and what trends and reforms may shape the market next. 1) What is litigation funding? Litigation funding is a financing arrangement where an independent funder pays some or all of a party’s dispute costs—typically legal fees, tribunal/court fees, experts, and sometimes adverse costs cover—in return for a success-based return (usually a percentage of recoveries or a multiple of the invested capital). A typical funded party uses funding to: Funding is non-recourse in many structures: if the case fails, the funded party usually owes nothing back to the funder (except as agreed for specific items), and the funder absorbs the loss. 2) How litigation funding works in practice Although funding terms vary, most arrangements follow a familiar lifecycle: A. Case screening and due diligence Funders generally assess: B. Funding documentation A funding relationship is usually documented through a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) (or “funding agreement”), sometimes complemented by: C. Ongoing case management Funders typically do not run the case day-to-day, but they often negotiate: D. Resolution and return If the case succeeds, the funder’s return is taken from proceeds. If it fails, the funder’s capital is typically lost (subject to specific contract carve-outs). 3) The UAE legal landscape: three “tracks” you must distinguish When people say “litigation funding in the UAE,” they often mix three distinct settings: Each track has a different level of explicit regulation and predictability. 4) DIFC Courts: explicit practice direction and disclosure expectations The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 on Third Party Funding, which sets out requirements for funded parties in DIFC Court proceedings. Key takeaways commonly highlighted in DIFC practice include: Why this matters: DIFC’s approach is designed to balance (a) access to justice and commercial financing with (b) transparency and conflict management in proceedings—especially where a funder’s economic interest could intersect with costs or settlement decisions. 5) ADGM: a structured statutory basis and dedicated Litigation Funding Rules ADGM has one of the clearest funding frameworks in the region. It anchors enforceability in ADGM Courts regulations and supplements it with detailed rules. A. Statutory recognition (Article 225 concept) ADGM’s rulebook expressly contemplates that a litigation funding agreement is not unenforceable merely because it is a funding agreement, provided relevant conditions are met. B. ADGM Courts Litigation Funding Rules 2019 ADGM Courts issued Litigation Funding Rules 2019, providing a comprehensive framework for LFAs, including obligations and court-facing consequences. A notable feature is how ADGM ties funding to costs jurisdiction: the rules require the LFA to state that the funder submits to ADGM Courts’ jurisdiction for disputes relating to costs between the funded party and other parties (in funded proceedings). C. Costs in action: security for costs in ADGM proceedings Cost-risk management (including security for costs) is a practical theme in funded disputes. ADGM’s published judgments show how the court approaches security for costs applications in appropriate circumstances. Why this matters: ADGM’s framework is often seen as “investor-friendly” because it provides clearer rules on enforceability, disclosure expectations, and cost-related court powers—reducing uncertainty for funders and funded parties. 6) Arbitration in the UAE: DIAC’s disclosure rule and the federal backdrop A. DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 (Dubai’s main institution) The DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 include a specific provision on third-party funding arrangements: Why this matters: In arbitration, disclosure is often driven by conflict management (ensuring an arbitrator is not conflicted with a funder) and by fairness in cost proceedings. B. Federal arbitration law: not a dedicated funding statute The UAE’s Federal Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018) provides the general arbitration framework, but market commentary widely notes it does not specifically codify third-party funding. Practically, this means arbitration funding often relies on: 7) Onshore UAE courts: permitted in practice, but less explicitly regulated Outside the DIFC/ADGM court systems, onshore UAE court litigation funding is not governed by a single, dedicated funding code. Reputable practice guides generally describe onshore funding as “not expressly regulated,” with enforceability turning on general contract and professional regulation considerations. A key constraint: lawyer fee regulation (success fees vs contingency) Funding structures must be designed around professional rules on lawyers’ fees and independence. The UAE has updated its legal profession framework via Federal Decree-Law No. (34) of 2022 and related executive regulations. Even where funding is separate from a law firm’s fee arrangement, funders and counsel typically ensure: 8) Typical deal terms (and the “hot spots” UAE parties focus on) Whether the forum is DIFC, ADGM, or arbitration, the same commercial/ethical pressure points appear repeatedly: 9) Examples and “case reference” signals Because funding is often confidential, public “funding disputes” are less common than funding effects—for example, in cost/security applications. 10) What’s next: trends and possible reforms (2026–2028) The direction of travel in the UAE is broadly toward more clarity, more disclosure discipline, and deeper institutionalization—but not necessarily a single federal “litigation funding law” in the near term. Trend 1: Growth in arbitration funding and portfolio financing As DIAC’s 2022 rules normalize disclosure and conflict management, funding becomes easier to operationalize.Expect: Impact Trend 2: Stronger transparency norms (without full agreement disclosure) DIFC and DIAC already prioritize early notice and identity disclosure, while still allowing confidentiality around the LFA’s commercial terms unless ordered.Expect convergence around: Trend 3: Continued dominance of DIFC/ADGM

The UAE’s Quiet Legal Revolution
Arbitration & Cross-Border Funding, UAE Litigation Funding

Why Arbitration Funding Is Booming in the UAE and the Offshore Courts

/

The arbitration funding landscape in the UAE and DIFC Courts is experiencing unprecedented growth, transforming dispute resolution into a more accessible and competitive arena. What was once a grey area now represents a thriving market driven by regulatory clarity, favourable case economics, and geopolitical positioning. The UAE’s pro arbitration stance has crystallized through explicit regulatory frameworks. Both the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) have issued comprehensive guidelines permitting third party funding, creating a common law environment aligned with international best practices. Critically, arbitrateAD, which replaced the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre in December 2023 through an announcement at first, incorporated third party funding provisions in its new rules effective February 2024, positioning Abu Dhabi as a competitive arbitration hub. The DIFC Courts upheld legacy arbitration agreements despite institutional disruptions, signalling judicial commitment to enforceability. Recent decisions from the Dubai Court of Cassation have further solidified investor confidence by confirming tribunals’ authority to award legal costs under the ICC Rules, addressing a major concern for funded parties. The numbers tell a compelling story of momentum. DIAC’s 2023 caseload reached 355 registered cases worth AED 5.5 billion (approximately USD 1.5 billion), an 11% increase in case volume. The DIFC Courts reported AED 7.7 billion in total claim value across 2024, with arbitration cases alone averaging AED 1.6 billion per claim in the first half of 2023. These high value disputes predominantly in construction, energy, and maritime sectors justify substantial funding commitments from institutional investors. Globally, the litigation funding market reached USD 25.1 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach USD 56.2 billion by 2034, with the UAE specifically identified as a key emerging hub due to DIFC and ADGM regulatory support. Three factors converge to explain why the UAE attracts global funders. First, capital preservation allows UAE based corporations to pursue multimillion dollar claims without depleting operating budgets, using funded claims as alternative capital sources. Second, the region’s construction, infrastructure, and energy sectors worth nearly USD 100 billion in active projects generate substantial high stakes disputes that justify funding arrangements. Third, enforcement confidence stems from the DIFC Courts’ alignment with the New York Convention, coupled with streamlined judgment enforcement mechanisms that reduce execution risk for funders. The offshore jurisdictions operate under common law principles, offering transparency and procedural predictability that onshore based courts cannot match as of now. This creates a bifurcated market where international disputes gravitate toward DIFC and ADGM, while onshore courts remain permissive but untested. The UAE’s emergence as a litigation finance hub reflects strategic positioning as an alternative to established centres like London. While London seated arbitrations remain dominant, the DIFC Courts’ 2025 reforms including streamlined jurisdictional rules and enforceability of mediated settlements reduce incentives to seat cases elsewhere. International parties increasingly view the UAE as offering equivalent legal rigor with superior geographical and enforcement logistics for Middle Eastern disputes. Innovation is also adapting to local contexts, with funders exploring Sharia compliant models, including Murabaha style deferred payments and profit sharing arrangements, broadening access beyond secular commercial entities. This cultural adaptation differentiates the UAE from purely Western funding ecosystems. While offshore jurisdictions currently offer clearer regulatory guidance on funding, onshore courts’ openness to the practice even without explicit rules suggests room for natural growth. As more cases utilize funding and the practice becomes routine, other regional centres may gradually adopt similar approaches. For international litigators, arbitration funders, and corporate counsel globally, it’s increasingly clear that the Gulf’s dispute resolution market deserves serious attention. The combination of growing case volumes, increasing institutional investment, and supportive judicial frameworks means the UAE and DIFC Courts are becoming genuine alternatives to traditional common law jurisdictions.

Articles, UAE Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding in the UAE

/

Introduction The legal landscape in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is undergoing a significant transformation. At the center of this evolution is litigation funding—a financial tool that enables claimants to pursue meritorious legal claims without bearing the financial burden of litigation. Once controversial, litigation funding is now a globally accepted mechanism to democratize access to justice, reduce risk, and unlock new business opportunities in dispute resolution. While the concept remains relatively new in the Middle East, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) have taken pioneering steps to create regulatory frameworks that legitimize and govern third-party litigation funding. This article explores what litigation funding is, why it matters, and how DIFC and ADGM are positioning the UAE as a preferred destination for global litigation funders—and how WinJustice is leading that transformation from within. What Is Litigation Funding? Litigation funding, also known as third-party funding (TPF), refers to the practice where a party unconnected to a dispute finances the legal costs of a claim—typically in exchange for a share of any financial recovery if the case is successful. Key Components of Litigation Funding: Who Benefits? Litigation funding is not just about money—it’s about empowering access to justice, especially in complex commercial cases where cost is a barrier. Legal Landscape in the UAE The UAE operates a dual legal system: Why DIFC and ADGM Matter Onshore UAE courts currently lack detailed rules on third-party funding and rarely award significant legal costs to the winning party, making them less attractive to litigation funders. In contrast, DIFC and ADGM have both introduced formal legal structures that regulate and encourage litigation funding, aligning with international best practices and offering attractive benefits such as: Litigation Funding in the DIFC The DIFC Courts formally recognized litigation funding in Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 (PD 2/2017). This directive outlines how funded litigation should be disclosed and managed within DIFC proceedings. Key Provisions of DIFC PD 2/2017: Litigation Funding in the ADGM The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) has introduced Litigation Funding Rules 2019, under Part 9 (Article 225) of its court regulations—making it the first jurisdiction in the Middle East to issue comprehensive litigation funding laws. Key Features of the ADGM Framework: These rules provide the highest levels of transparency and investor confidence, giving claimants and funders alike a clear roadmap for structuring compliant, enforceable funding relationships. Why the UAE Is Attracting Funders — And How WinJustice Is Leading the Way As the first homegrown litigation funding firm established in the UAE, WinJustice is not only witnessing the market shift — we are actively shaping it. Founded with a vision to bridge the gap between justice and financial access, WinJustice was built on the belief that no viable claim should go unheard due to lack of resources. We operate at the intersection of legal strategy and smart capital, supporting businesses, law firms, and claimants in unlocking the full potential of their legal rights. 🔹 Pioneering Legal Finance in the UAE 🔹 Why Global Clients Choose the UAE — With WinJustice as Their Ally 🗣️ “We launched WinJustice to give businesses the financial muscle to pursue justice on equal footing. The UAE is more than ready for litigation funding—and we’re proud to lead that movement from within.”— WinJustice Founder Business Opportunities and Strategic Value Litigation funding in the UAE unlocks multiple strategic and commercial advantages: ✅ For Law Firms: ✅ For Claimants: ✅ For Funders: Conclusion Litigation funding is reshaping dispute resolution in the UAE. Through regulatory leadership in the DIFC and ADGM, and with the trailblazing efforts of WinJustice, the country is becoming a legal finance hub for the Middle East and beyond. These developments have brought international credibility, business confidence, and enhanced access to justice. As awareness spreads and more claimants seek fair solutions, WinJustice remains at the forefront—funding justice, empowering businesses, and leading a new era of legal innovation.

Scroll to Top