The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts have introduced Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 – Adjournment of Hearings, providing a comprehensive procedural framework governing requests to adjourn hearings before the DIFC Courts. Signed by Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 14 July 2026, the Practice Direction aims to promote judicial efficiency, minimize unnecessary delays, and reinforce the principle that hearings should proceed as scheduled unless the Court expressly orders otherwise. The Practice Direction comes into force seven days after its publication and applies to all parties appearing before the DIFC Courts.
Introduction
Adjournment applications are a common feature of commercial litigation. However, they often have significant consequences for case management, court resources, and the timely administration of justice. The DIFC Courts have therefore formalised a clear procedural regime to ensure that requests for adjournments are made promptly, supported by proper reasons, and determined exclusively by the Court rather than by agreement between the parties.
The Practice Direction establishes distinct procedures for consensual adjournment requests and contested applications while making it clear that the existing procedural timetable remains fully effective unless the Court directs otherwise.
The Fundamental Principle: A Hearing Remains Listed Until the Court Orders Otherwise
The cornerstone of the Practice Direction is the reaffirmation of judicial control over the Court’s hearing list.
The Practice Direction expressly provides that once a hearing has been listed, it will remain listed unless and until the Court orders or directs otherwise. Importantly, an agreement between the parties to postpone a hearing does not automatically result in an adjournment. Even where every party agrees that a hearing should be postponed, the hearing remains fixed until the Court formally approves the request.
Accordingly, parties must continue preparing for the scheduled hearing and comply with all procedural obligations unless and until the Court issues an order vacating, adjourning, or otherwise varying the hearing date.
Requests for Adjournment by Consent
The Practice Direction introduces a structured procedure where all parties consent to an adjournment.
Once agreement has been reached, the parties are required to notify the Court immediately. The request may be submitted by letter or email to the DIFC Courts Registry, provided all other parties are copied into the correspondence unless the Court directs otherwise.
The request must contain specific information, including confirmation that all parties consent to the adjournment, an explanation of the reasons supporting the request, the date on which the parties reached agreement, and any proposed alternative hearing dates where appropriate.
Nevertheless, even a fully consensual request does not automatically remove the hearing from the Court’s calendar. The hearing remains listed until the Court reviews the request and formally grants the adjournment.
Contested Adjournment Applications
Where one or more parties oppose the proposed adjournment, the Practice Direction requires the requesting party to make a formal application in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts.
The application must be filed immediately once the circumstances giving rise to the request become known. Delayed applications may therefore face greater scrutiny, particularly where the requesting party could reasonably have acted sooner.
The application must explain the reasons for seeking the adjournment, identify when those circumstances arose, and describe the prejudice that the applicant is likely to suffer if the adjournment is refused.
This requirement ensures that the Court receives sufficient information to balance the interests of all parties while maintaining the efficient conduct of proceedings.
Existing Procedural Directions Continue to Apply
One of the most significant aspects of the Practice Direction is its clarification that an adjournment request does not suspend existing procedural obligations.
Unless the Court specifically orders otherwise, the filing of either a consensual request or a contested application does not relieve the parties from complying with existing court orders, procedural directions, filing deadlines, disclosure obligations, or any other case management timetable.
Consequently, parties should not assume that pending applications for adjournment automatically extend procedural deadlines. Until the Court grants appropriate relief, all existing obligations remain fully enforceable.
Judicial Case Management Remains Paramount
The Practice Direction reflects the DIFC Courts’ continued emphasis on active judicial case management.
By making clear that only the Court has authority to adjourn hearings, the Practice Direction preserves judicial control over litigation timetables and prevents parties from privately altering hearing dates without judicial approval.
The Direction also encourages early communication with the Court whenever unforeseen circumstances arise, allowing judges to manage their hearing lists efficiently while ensuring fairness to all litigants.
Practical Implications for Litigants
The Practice Direction has several important practical consequences for parties involved in DIFC Court proceedings.
First, parties should avoid assuming that mutual agreement is sufficient to postpone a hearing. Court approval remains mandatory in every case.
Secondly, parties seeking an adjournment should act immediately once the relevant circumstances become known. Delay in making the application may weaken the request and could affect the Court’s assessment of its merits.
Thirdly, litigants must continue preparing for hearings, comply with disclosure obligations, file evidence, exchange submissions, and meet all procedural deadlines unless the Court expressly directs otherwise.
Finally, parties should ensure that any adjournment request contains complete supporting information, including clear reasons for the request and proposed alternative hearing dates where appropriate, thereby assisting the Court in making an informed decision.
Benefits for the Administration of Justice
The Practice Direction promotes several important objectives within the DIFC judicial system.
It reduces uncertainty by establishing a uniform procedure for adjournment requests, discourages unnecessary delays in litigation, reinforces procedural discipline, and ensures that court resources are allocated efficiently.
By requiring prompt applications supported by proper reasons, the Direction also encourages greater procedural transparency while reducing the likelihood of tactical adjournment requests designed to delay proceedings.
Conclusion
Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 represents an important procedural development in DIFC litigation. Although adjournments remain available where justified, the Practice Direction makes clear that they are not automatic and remain entirely within the discretion of the Court.
The new framework reinforces a fundamental principle of modern civil litigation: hearings proceed as scheduled unless the Court determines otherwise. Parties must therefore continue to comply with all procedural obligations, even where an adjournment has been requested or agreed between them, until a formal court order is issued.
For practitioners and litigants appearing before the DIFC Courts, the Practice Direction underscores the importance of early case preparation, prompt communication with the Court, and strict compliance with procedural timetables. These measures are expected to further enhance the efficiency, predictability, and effective administration of justice within the DIFC Courts.
Authors:
Talk to a lawyer about your situation. KH Legal’s team in Dubai advises businesses and individuals across the UAE. Call +971 4 427 0845 or message us on WhatsApp for a confidential consultation.