Introduction
The Qatar International Center for Conciliation and Arbitration (QICCA) is the leading arbitral institute in Qatar, founded in 2006. In 2024, QICCA was named in Global Arbitration Review’s guide to regional arbitration as one of the “Institutions to Watch” in the Middle East. This accolade reflects Qatar’s growing prominence as a key business centre in the Middle East, where QICCA is frequently chosen by Qatari state entities and corporations for the resolution of their disputes.
Effective 1 January 2025, QICCA has launched new arbitration rules refreshing its 2012 Rules. The 2024 Rules were first developed in 2021, with plans for their launch in 2022. However, the launch was delayed until QICCA’s chief legal counsel, Khaled Mohamed, returned to QICCA after a year in private practice. They also follow on the heels of another change to QICCA’s senior leadership: Ibrahim Shahbik, who had served as deputy secretary general since 2016, has been promoted to secretary general. Together, these developments are expected to further cement QICCA’s regional standing.
The 2024 Rules are more detailed than the 2012 Rules, and introduce, among others, new provisions relating to consolidation, expedited proceedings and emergency arbitration. They also update other important provisions in the 2012 Rules, including with respect to technological advances. These changes further align QICCA’s rules with international best practices in arbitration.
In 2023, QICCA reported handling cases with a total value of approximately US$800 million, though specific details regarding the number of cases or their initiation dates were not disclosed. According to available statistics, 70% of QICCA’s cases are conducted in English, with the remaining 30% in Arabic, and 60% are construction-related. The arbitrator pool was composed of roughly half Qatari nationals and half individuals from various international backgrounds.
In this Client Alert, we examine the key changes introduced by the 2024 Rules and how these changes may affect you.
Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration
The 2024 Rules introduce new provisions addressing multi-party or multi-contract disputes, enhancing efficiency.
QICCA’s 2012 Rules did not permit the consolidation of more than one arbitration into a single arbitration. Consolidation is an important tool, allowing disputes arising out of multiple contracts and/or involving multiple parties to be heard jointly in a single arbitration, minimising costs and avoiding the risk of inconsistent decisions.
A consolidation mechanism has now been introduced by Article 10 of the 2024 Rules. Prior to the tribunal’s appointment, QICCA itself may consolidate arbitrations that relate to the same dispute or contract and are between the same parties (or some of the same parties). Following tribunal appointment, they may ask QICCA to consolidate the arbitrations, after consulting the parties. Unlike the rules of certain other arbitral institutes, Article 10 does not prescribe specific circumstances in which consolidation is permitted after the tribunal’s appointment. However, the guidelines to the 2024 Rules provide that consolidation should be permitted only in respect of the same dispute or matters raised from the same contract and between the same parties or some of them. QICCA has broad discretion to consider all the circumstances, including the similarity between the arbitrations, the relief sought in the arbitrations, the status of each arbitration and the arbitration agreement invoked in each arbitration. Although the degree of flexibility afforded to QICCA has benefits in allowing it to consider all the relevant circumstances, this approach may provide less certainty to parties when considering the merits of a potential consolidation application. As such, it remains to be seen how the new provisions are interpreted in practice.
The 2012 Rules allowed third parties to be joined as parties to an existing arbitration only in limited circumstances, which set a high bar for joinder. Article 21 of the 2024 Rules has expanded the joinder provisions. QICCA can now order joinder before a tribunal’s appointment if (1) it is prima facie satisfied that the joining party is a party to the arbitration agreement (including as an original party or a party that the agreement is assigned or extended to); or (2) the joining party agrees. Tribunals may still order joinder, but only where the joining party is a party to the arbitration agreement (again, either as an original party or a party that the agreement is assigned or extended to). The 2024 Rules therefore helpfully clarify that the arbitration agreement can bind parties that it was assigned or extended to. A tribunal may refuse a joinder request if it considers that the joining party is prima facie not bound by the arbitration agreement, or there are other circumstances that make joinder inappropriate. This affords tribunals greater scope to order joinder compared with the 2012 Rules.
The introduction of the consolidation provisions and expansion of the joinder provisions are welcome developments. The 2024 Rules do not expressly address multi-contract situations, such as whether a claimant may commence one arbitration arising out of multiple contracts. However, the 2024 Rules (and indeed the 2012 Rules) do not restrict multi-contract situations. As such we understand that, in practice, QICCA registers an arbitration filed by several claimants if the arbitration agreements are compatible.
Expedited procedure
The 2024 Rules have introduced a new mechanism where expedited relief is required. No equivalent mechanism existed under the 2012 Rules.
The 2024 Rules provide that where the amount in dispute is QAR 1 million (approximately US$264,000) or less and the parties entered into their arbitration agreement after 1 January 2024, the expedited procedure will apply (the Expedited Procedure). The parties may also opt in or out of the Expedited Procedure before or after an arbitration has begun.
Where the Expedited Procedure applies, the tribunal will be appointed within seven days of the respondent’s response to the claimant’s request for arbitration (or when that response was due). The default position is that the Expedited Procedure will be documents-only, with hearings only held in exceptional circumstances. The tribunal is obliged to issue its final award within 90 days from the transfer of the file to the tribunal, although the parties can agree to extend this time limit. The tribunal may also extend this time limit, but only by up to 30 days.
The Expedited Procedure provides for the speedy resolution of less complex and/or lower value disputes, or those where speed of resolution is critical. Delays are often cited as one of the principal complaints about arbitration. The Expedited Procedure provisions are therefore welcome, particularly as they apply on a default basis. However, the monetary threshold for the Expedited Procedure (approximately US$264,000) is lower than for several other arbitral institutes. Under the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration rules, for example, an expedited procedure applies where the amount in dispute is US$3 million or less (for arbitration agreements entered on or after 1 January 2021). It remains to be seen if, in time, QICCA revisits the financial threshold for the Expedited Procedure.
Emergency arbitration
The 2024 Rules have also introduced an emergency arbitration (EA) process. No such process existed under the 2012 Rules.
Emergency arbitration is used where a party requires urgent relief prior to the appointment of a tribunal. On or after filing a request for arbitration, a party can apply for emergency relief by submitting an application to QICCA and paying the associated fees, which range from QAR 30,000 (approximately US$8,000) for disputes below QAR 1 million to a maximum of QAR 165,000 (approximately US$44,000) for disputes above QAR 100 million.
The 2024 Rules do not set out the criteria that QICCA will use to determine the EA application. QICCA may grant the application if it determines that the application is “prima facie based on valid grounds and [QICCA] has jurisdiction to administer the application”. In such circumstances, QICCA will appoint an emergency arbitrator “as soon as practicable”. This differs from the rules of certain other arbitral institutes, which prescribe a short time limit within which the arbitral institute must appoint an emergency arbitrator if the EA application is granted.
The emergency arbitrator must render a decision as soon as possible and no later than 15 days from their appointment. Somewhat unusually, the 2024 Rules state that the emergency arbitrator may only grant the requested emergency relief where:
- the emergency arbitrator has jurisdiction to order the requested emergency relief;
- there is a reasonable possibility of a successful claim;
- actual or potential harm has been incurred that cannot be remedied by way of damages;
- extremely urgent circumstances exist; and
- the interests of the emergency relief applicant outweigh the harm that may be incurred by the party against whom the emergency relief is directed.
It appears these requirements are cumulative, such that the emergency arbitrator can only grant the requested emergency relief where all the above requirements are satisfied. While most of these are typical requirements usually considered by arbitrators when interim relief is requested, in practice, the spelt-out, stringent nature of the requirements may dilute the effectiveness of the emergency arbitrator provisions.
Once appointed, the tribunal may confirm, review, modify or set aside the emergency arbitrator’s decision.
The disclosure of third-party funding
The 2012 Rules were silent about third-party funding.
Article 9 of the 2024 Rules requires that where a party is “funded or financial[ly] supported by a third party”, it is subject to an ongoing duty throughout the arbitration to disclose the details of such funding to QICCA or the tribunal, including the nature of the funding and the funder’s identity. This reflects the growth in third-party funding since the 2012 Rules were issued, and the need for transparency to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Parties that benefit from third-party funding should be aware of this disclosure requirement.
The wording of Article 9 is arguably also wide enough to capture scenarios where a party receives funding from a corporate affiliate, officer or shareholder. Parties receiving such funding should therefore be mindful of the potential requirement to disclose it.
The default seat of arbitration
The 2012 Rules provided that the seat, or legal place, of the arbitration would (if not agreed) be the Qatar Center for Conciliation and Arbitration. There were concerns that this provision could lead to confusion between the arbitral institute and the seat of the arbitration.
This potential confusion has been removed by Article 23 of the 2024 Rules, which provides that if the seat is not agreed, the “initial” seat of the arbitration shall be Doha. The 2024 Rules therefore adopt the same approach to the default seat as recently adopted in the Dubai International Arbitration Centre Rules 2022, which also refer to an “initial” seat. After the tribunal’s appointment, it may reconsider the seat, but only if the parties agree. Since the 2024 Rules require party agreement before a tribunal can reconsider the issue of the seat, it is likely that the seat will be Doha more often than not.
The use of technology
The 2012 Rules contained certain provisions that permitted the use of technology, such as allowing fact and expert witnesses to be examined by video. However, it was not entirely clear whether virtual hearings were permitted, unless agreed by the parties.
In a welcome update, the 2024 Rules have clarified that hearings may be held virtually. The 2024 Rules also permit arbitrators to use electronic signatures to sign awards. However, for Doha-seated arbitrations, it is generally required that arbitrators be present for hearings or the signing of awards. It therefore remains to be seen how the new provisions will be interpreted by arbitrators and the courts of the seat.
However, the 2024 Rules do not go as far as the rules of certain other arbitral institutes in embracing the use of technology. For example, the 2024 Rules do not provide that email communication is the default position. Article 4.9 of the 2024 Rules provides that “in all cases” hard copies of documents and correspondence must be delivered to QICCA unless QICCA decides otherwise. We understand that certain hard-copy requirements were retained because QICCA disputes often arise under older contracts, which require hard-copy notifications or correspondence. To ensure efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of arbitrations, it is hoped that tribunals and QICCA will routinely permit the exclusive use of electronic correspondence and documents. The 2024 Rules allow for this, and indeed Article 4.2 considers that where project communications took place by email, that should be the appropriate mode of tribunal communication.
Other provisions intended to improve efficiency
The 2024 Rules have also introduced other provisions intended to enhance the overall efficiency of arbitral proceedings.
The timeframes for the selection and appointment of arbitrators have been shortened. Similarly, arbitrators must issue final awards within six months of the transfer of the file to them, unless the parties agree otherwise or QICCA determines otherwise. Under the 2012 Rules, the equivalent provision only required arbitrators to use their best efforts to render a final award within six months.
The 2012 Rules required that all communications between tribunals and parties take place via QICCA. Although in our experience this requirement was often not followed, the 2024 Rules have removed this default position, which could cause delay.
The 2024 Rules also require that the period for filing legal submissions cannot be longer than 30 days, unless the parties agree otherwise. Although intended to promote efficiency, a 30-day period would not be suitable for submissions in all arbitrations, such as in complex, fact-heavy disputes.
Amiable compositeur and ex aequo et bono
An unusual feature of the 2012 Rules was that, unless otherwise agreed, arbitrators were required to act as amiable compositeur or decide ex aequo et bono (with decisions based on fairness and equity, not the parties’ legal rights and obligations). This default position was the opposite of the position taken by leading global arbitral institutes. In our experience, parties and tribunals invariably agreed to disapply this default position under the 2012 Rules after the tribunal’s appointment.
Consistent with international best practice, Article 38.3 of the 2024 Rules has amended the default position, such that the tribunal may only decide as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono if expressly authorised by the parties to do so.
Unusually, the 2024 Rules allow the tribunal to undertake investigations or collect evidence on its own initiative (including without notice to the parties). It remains to be seen how this provision is interpreted by tribunals, and later by courts if they are required to consider arguments that a tribunal went beyond its mandate.
Fees under the 2024 Rules
Finally, the 2024 Rules update the fees in the 2012 Rules.
QICCA’s fees continue to be based on the amount in dispute. The most notable change is that the registration fee is not a fixed amount for all arbitrations. Instead, QICCA charges a staggered registration fee of between QAR 5,000 and QAR 20,000, subject to the amount in dispute. There have also been revisions to QICCA’s and tribunals’ fees, which have been modestly increased compared with the fees in the 2012 Rules.
Concluding remarks
Parties with projects or business in the Gulf region often include arbitration agreements in their contracts. The 2024 Rules mark a significant step forward in aligning QICCA’s practices with international arbitration standards, enhancing efficiency, transparency and adaptability to modern arbitration demands. The new rules provide a robust framework for resolving disputes in Qatar and beyond. These developments position QICCA as a competitive choice for parties seeking effective dispute resolution in the Middle East, reinforcing Qatar’s role as a regional arbitration hub. However, much will depend on how cases are managed by the QICCA Secretariat and how the 2024 Rules are interpreted and applied in practice. As the 2024 Rules take effect, parties should familiarise themselves with these updates and monitor their practical implementation to fully leverage the benefits they offer.
In-depth 2024-249