Fixed Deadlines in Arbitration Agreements: Pros and Cons (with Bangladesh, Dubai & London Contexts)
Executive summary (for busy GCs and founders)
Fixed time limits in arbitration—such as requiring the tribunal to publish the final award within a specified number of days or setting strict calendars for pleadings—can be a powerful way to control cost and delay. Yet they also create new legal and practical risks: due-process challenges, unenforceability of awards, and tactical gamesmanship. This TRW Law Firm guide distils how fixed deadlines work in practice, how leading institutions in London and Dubai treat them, what Bangladeshi counterparties should watch for, and how to draft timelines that are robust, enforceable, and commercially sensible.
If you remember three things:
■ Use “hard-soft” time limits: write firm dates and include an express safety valve (extensions by tribunal or institution for good cause).
■ Tie deadlines to objective milestones (e.g., “three months after last substantive submission”) rather than calendar dates that can be derailed by late evidence or joinders.
■ Protect enforceability: add language that a missed deadline does not of itself void the award, absent serious prejudice—especially important for cross-border enforcement in Bangladesh, the UAE, and England & Wales.
(If you want to explore how we run fast, fair arbitrations, see TRW’s International Arbitration practice at tahmidurrahman.com — internal link.)
1) Why businesses ask for fixed deadlines in the first place
Arbitration’s promise is speed, confidentiality, and finality. But real-world users—project developers, EPC contractors, technology platforms, banks, energy companies, venture investors—have seen proceedings sprawl. Common pain points include:
■ Procedural drift after tribunal constitution.
■ Over-lawyering and rolling waves of evidence.
■ Tactical adjournments, late amendments, and serial challenges.
■ Complex seat-specific procedural quirks.
Fixed deadlines are a contractual tool to anchor the case to a defined runway: pleadings served within X weeks, hearing by Month Y, award within Z days. They can appear either (i) in the main arbitration clause in the contract, or (ii) in a later procedural timetable agreed with the tribunal.
Bottom line: fixed deadlines are attractive when disputes are time-sensitive (e.g., perishable cargo, seasonal supply, digital-asset movements), when counterparties are in multiple jurisdictions (raising enforcement cost of drift), or when the project financing requires certainty (lenders often ask).
2) What, precisely, is a “fixed deadline”?
In arbitration drafting, “fixed deadline” language can govern three layers:
- Constitution phase: time to appoint arbitrators, resolve challenges, or appointing authority intervention.
- Merits phase: time for pleadings (SoC, SoD, replies), document production, expert reports, hearing window, post-hearing briefs.
- Award phase: time for drafting and issuing the reasoned award.
Each layer interacts with institutional rules and the law of the seat (the juridical home of the arbitration). A well-drafted clause acknowledges that interplay; a poor one ignores it and triggers enforceability headaches later.
3) The legal framework that sits behind your timelines
3.1 Seats and their laws (Bangladesh, UAE, England & Wales)
- Bangladesh: The Arbitration Act, 2001 (as amended) and the New York Convention framework govern enforcement. Bangladeshi courts focus on due process, equal treatment, and public policy. A rigid deadline that appears to truncate a party’s right to be heard can become a ground for challenge or refusal to enforce.
- United Arab Emirates (Dubai): Onshore arbitrations are governed by UAE Federal Arbitration Law (largely Model-Law inspired); the DIFC and ADGM free zones have their own modern arbitration regulations and pro-enforcement courts. Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) rules encourage efficient timelines; institutions and tribunals can extend where justified.
- England & Wales (London): The Arbitration Act 1996 (with recent reforms continuing to prioritise party autonomy and efficiency) underpins London’s reputation for pragmatic case management. LCIA tribunals are pressed to deliver awards promptly and may set ambitious schedules, but English courts seldom annul solely for breach of a timetable unless serious procedural unfairness is shown.
Across these seats, two principles recur:
■ Party autonomy—you can agree your own timetable.
■ Mandatory due process—no timetable can override equal treatment and a reasonable opportunity to present the case.
3.2 Institutions and their rules (ICC, LCIA, DIAC, ADGM, DIFC, SIAC, etc.)
Most institutions encourage fast awards (often aiming at three to six months after the close of proceedings). But they retain powers to extend time to avoid unfairness. In practice, tribunals frequently seek short extensions when evidence is voluminous or when post-hearing briefs raise new issues.
Practice point: your contract can set a target (e.g., “final award within 90 days of the last substantive submission”) and expressly allow the tribunal or institution to extend for good cause.
4) The business case for fixed deadlines
4.1 Predictable cash flow and financing
Capital-intensive businesses—cement plants, EPCs, telecom towercos, logistics, and SaaS scale-ups—value time-boxed outcomes:
■ Easier to model cash requirements for security for costs, expert fees, and counsel spend.
■ Transparent reporting to lenders and investors.
■ Ability to plan drops to revenue reserve accounts based on expected award dates.
4.2 Mitigating counterparties’ delay tactics
In cross-border deals (Bangladesh ↔ UAE, Bangladesh ↔ UK, or multijurisdictional supply chains), fixed calendars reduce the reward for strategic foot-dragging, serial amendments, or endless procedural skirmishes.
4.3 Preserving commercial relationships
A fast, predictable resolution can save a project—especially in infrastructure, energy, telecoms, ports, or JV tech builds—where the parties still need to collaborate after the dispute.
5) The legal risks you must not underestimate
5.1 Due process risk (the number one issue)
If a party can plausibly argue that a fixed schedule denied it a meaningful opportunity to present its case—because, for example, document production could not be completed in the set window or a key witness was unavailable—then:
■ The award is vulnerable to annulment at the seat; and/or
■ Enforcement may be refused in Bangladesh, the UAE, or England & Wales under New York Convention grounds.
5.2 Automatic nullity risk where the law is strict
Some jurisdictions take a very strict view of hard deadlines for issuing awards. If the tribunal misses a contractually fixed cut-off and there is no valid extension mechanism, the award can be challenged as out of time. Even in pro-arbitration courts, this risk spikes where the clause says “shall be void if issued after [date]”.
5.3 Tactical “deadline spring-traps”
A recalcitrant party may lie in wait, cooperate just enough to let time expire, then claim “time barred” to torpedo an unfavourable award. Clauses should close this loophole.
5.4 Parallel court skirmishes
Rigid deadlines sometimes drive parties into courts (e.g., for interim relief, extensions, or challenges), undermining the efficiency they were meant to preserve.
6) Practical drafting strategies that work (Bangladesh • Dubai • London)
6.1 Use “Firm Target + Good-Cause Extension” architecture
Write: “The tribunal shall endeavour to issue its final award within 90 days after the last substantive submission. The institution or tribunal may extend this period for good cause, including complexity, joinder, or due-process considerations.”
Why it works:
■ Signals seriousness about speed.
■ Preserves enforceability by recognising due-process imperatives.
■ Aligns with institutional discretion in London (LCIA) and Dubai (DIAC/DIFC/ADGM).
6.2 Tie clocks to objective procedural milestones
Avoid “by 30 September 2025” unless the case schedule is already known. Prefer: “within 30 days after [event],” such as:
■ the tribunal’s procedural order fixing the hearing;
■ the close of the evidentiary hearing; or
■ the receipt of the last post-hearing submission.
6.3 Draft an anti-abuse clause
State that any party seeking an extension must do so promptly, with reasons; and that a party shall not later rely on its own dilatory conduct to challenge the award’s timing.
6.4 Stipulate graduated remedies, not automatic nullity
If timing slips, provide process, not a guillotine:
■ Tribunal must notify parties;
■ Parties may be heard on length of extension;
■ Institution (or appointing authority) can set a new binding date;
■ No automatic invalidity of the award solely for missing the initial date.
6.5 Keep emergency relief outside the fixed calendar
Carve out emergency arbitrator or interim measures from your fixed timelines so urgent steps (asset preservation, status quo orders) can be taken immediately without colliding with the main schedule.
6.6 Think seat-first when you add deadlines
- Bangladesh-seated arbitrations: use soft deadlines; ensure hearing of both sides is preserved; emphasise tribunal discretion to grant short extensions.
- Dubai/DIFC/ADGM: align with DIAC/DIFC/ADGM practice; recognise institutional power to extend; ensure compatibility with onshore/offshore court supervision.
- London: LCIA “as soon as reasonably possible” ethos pairs well with firm targets and reasoned extensions.
7) How fixed deadlines play out during the case lifecycle
7.1 Constitution phase
Risk: party A delays appointing its arbitrator to force the clock to drift.
Solution: a clause stating that if a party fails to appoint within X days, the institution appoints immediately; the case timetable runs regardless of party appointments once the tribunal is complete.
7.2 Pleadings and document production
Risk: a fixed 14-day window for document production is unrealistic in a construction dispute with 100,000 documents.
Solution: draft category-based production with time for rolling disclosure; allow the tribunal to limit or extend for proportionality.
7.3 Hearings
Risk: witness unavailability collides with a rigid hearing week.
Solution: allow remote testimony and staggered days; give the tribunal power to reschedule within a narrow window (e.g., 30 days) without breaking the overall award deadline.
7.4 Post-hearing briefs and award
Risk: compressing PHBs and award drafting may compromise reasoning quality.
Solution: set short but real PHB deadlines (e.g., 21 days), and then a 60–90 day award window with a one-time 30-day extension for complex issues.
8) Industry-specific insights
8.1 Construction & infrastructure (Bangladesh ↔ Dubai corridors)
Disputes often involve design change logs, variation orders, and delay-analysis—document-heavy and expert-driven. Fixed deadlines must give oxygen for:
■ Independent delay analysis (critical path, concurrency).
■ Quantum assessment (as-built vs as-planned).
■ Potential joinders (subcontractor claims).
Practical tip: use phased proceedings—decide liability first under a fixed schedule; quantum follows on a tighter calendar once liability is clarified.
8.2 Commodity and trade finance (Chattogram, Jebel Ali, London commodity desks)
Speed is essential (e.g., perishable goods, demurrage). Tight timelines for interim orders (security for cargo, letters of indemnity) make sense; the final award can still have a modest extension valve.
8.3 Technology, fintech, and digital assets
Evidence is often digital, cross-border, and time-sensitive (keys, logs, chain-of-custody). Fixed deadlines are useful if paired with protocols on e-discovery and forensic preservation to avoid late surprises.
8.4 JV and shareholder disputes
Emergency relief (non-compete enforcement, board meeting injunctions) matters more than the final award’s date. Carve-out emergency steps; keep main case on a fast but flexible track.
9) Managing the cross-border enforcement angle
For a Bangladeshi business with counterparties in Dubai or London—or a Dubai/London investor contracting with a Bangladeshi entity—the question is not only how fast you get an award, but how enforceable it is in all relevant jurisdictions.
Checklist for enforceability:
■ Choose a pro-arbitration seat (DIFC/ADGM/London commonly preferred for international deals; Dhaka for domestic enforcement convenience).
■ Ensure deadlines do not undermine equal treatment or a party’s right to present its case.
■ Include an extension mechanism and an anti-nullity clause (award not void solely due to missed timetable).
■ Keep a clean procedural record: reasons for any extension, both parties heard, proportionality weighed.
■ Avoid gamesmanship: if the opposing party engineers delay, put it on the record and ask the tribunal to stop the clock for that period.
10) Negotiation playbook when the other side insists on “hard” deadlines
When a counterparty pushes for “award within 60 days or void,” propose:
- Softening verbs: “shall endeavour” instead of “shall”.
- Explicit discretion: “the tribunal or the administering institution may extend for good cause.”
- Prejudice test: “Any breach of a timeline shall not by itself invalidate any decision absent material prejudice.”
- Stop-the-clock: “Time shall be suspended during any period caused by a party’s non-compliance or supervening events beyond the parties’ reasonable control.”
- Interim relief carve-out: “Timelines do not constrain emergency measures.”
If the other side refuses, you can trade concessions: narrower document production, page limits, or early neutral evaluation to clear issues before hearing.
11) Model clause library (seat-sensitive drafts)
11.1 Balanced model (recommended for most international contracts)
Timetable and Award Deadline
The arbitral tribunal shall, after consultation with the parties, issue a procedural timetable, including dates for submissions, document production, and the evidentiary hearing. The tribunal shall endeavour to render its final award within 90 days after the later of (i) the close of the evidentiary hearing or (ii) the last substantive written submission. The [institution/tribunal] may extend this period for good cause, having regard to complexity, joinder, or due-process considerations. For the avoidance of doubt, no failure to meet any date in the timetable shall, by itself, invalidate the award or the proceedings absent material prejudice.
11.2 Dubai-optimised variant (onshore or DIFC/ADGM)
Award Timing (UAE Focus)
The tribunal shall use reasonable endeavours to issue the final award within 120 days after the last substantive submission. The administering institution (or, failing that, the tribunal) may grant extensions for good cause, including complexity, joinder, or unforeseen circumstances. Any application for an extension shall be reasoned and shared with the parties. No automatic invalidity shall result from non-compliance with any deadline.
11.3 London-optimised variant (LCIA-style)
Prompt Award; Extensions
The tribunal shall seek to render the final award as soon as reasonably possible and in any event within 90 days following the close of proceedings, subject to such extensions as the tribunal or the institution considers necessary in the interests of justice. Time shall be suspended for any period attributable to a party’s non-compliance or supervening events beyond reasonable control.
11.4 Bangladesh-optimised variant
Procedural Economy and Due Process
The tribunal shall adopt a procedural timetable promoting efficiency and proportionality. The tribunal shall endeavour to render its final award within 120 days after the last substantive submission, subject to extensions granted for good cause. The parties acknowledge that equal treatment and a reasonable opportunity to present their cases shall take precedence over rigid time limits; accordingly, any timeline breach shall not invalidate the award absent serious prejudice.
12) Due-process guardrails you should always keep
■ Equal treatment: both sides must have comparable time to respond.
■ Right to be heard: compress but do not choke—e.g., allow short reply submissions.
■ Disclosure proportionality: cap fishing expeditions while allowing key categories.
■ Reasoned extensions: record why extensions are necessary.
■ Transparency: share extension applications and tribunal directions with both parties.
These guardrails are your insurance policy against annulment or enforcement refusals in Bangladesh, the UAE, or England & Wales.
13) Project-management techniques to make fast timelines realistic
Front-load your case: prepare witness statements, expert scoping, and document maps before the first procedural conference.
Data hygiene: lock down custodians; use analytics to prioritise key documents; stipulate search terms jointly to avoid later fights.
Expert protocols: agree on issues lists, hot-tubbing logistics, and page limits.
Hearing efficiencies: adopt chess-clock time, rolling cross-examination, and hybrid hearings (Dhaka and Dubai teams can appear virtually to save days).
Post-hearing discipline: limit briefs to issues truly requiring submission; avoid re-arguing.
14) How courts and tribunals assess “missed deadline” arguments
When parties challenge an award based on timing, courts typically ask:
- Was the deadline mandatory or aspirational? (“shall” vs “endeavour”).
- Who caused the delay? A party’s own dilatory conduct will undercut its challenge.
- Was there good cause and a reasoned extension?
- Was there actual prejudice? Without it, courts are reluctant to set aside awards.
The safest path is to design your clause so that a missed date triggers procedure (notice, consultation, extension), not nullity.
15) Special contexts: multi-party, multi-contract, consolidation
Fixed deadlines become fragile when:
- New parties are joined.
- Related arbitrations are consolidated.
- Parallel proceedings (e.g., indemnity chains) must be coordinated.
Drafting fix: add “timetable reset” language if joinder or consolidation occurs, and empower the tribunal to issue a revised schedule without risking enforceability.
16) Emergency arbitration and interim measures
Time-boxing the final award makes sense only if you preserve flexibility for interim relief:
- Asset-freeze or deposit orders to prevent dissipation.
- Status-quo maintenance in JV/governance fights.
- Security for costs in high-risk counterparties.
Carve-out: “Nothing in the timetable limits the tribunal’s or emergency arbitrator’s power to grant urgent interim measures forthwith.”
17) Frequently asked questions (Bangladesh • Dubai • London)
Q1: Can we insist on “award in 60 days or it’s void”?
You can draft it, but we advise against it. Many seats (and institutions) will treat such a term as subordinate to due process. A “void if late” clause increases the chance of tactical delay and post-award challenges.
Q2: What’s a realistic award window?
In complex commercial cases, 60–120 days from the last submissions is common. Simpler sale-of-goods disputes can be faster; mega-projects can need more time.
Q3: If we choose Dhaka as seat, will a strict clause be enforced?
Bangladeshi courts prioritise fairness. A strict clause that truncates a party’s case risks challenge. Use firm targets + good-cause extensions.
Q4: How do DIAC/DIFC/ADGM treat deadlines?
They support efficiency and have mechanisms for extensions. Draft your clause to fit that practice; let the institution extend when justice requires.
Q5: Will English courts (London) set aside an award just because it was late?
Rarely, and typically only with demonstrable prejudice or serious irregularity. London is pragmatic but still insists on fairness.
Q6: Can we specify page limits and hearing days alongside time limits?
Yes—and doing so often helps the tribunal keep to the award timeline.
Q7: Is there a way to penalise the opposing party for delay within the clause?
Direct penalties are sensitive. A better route is to empower the tribunal to suspend the clock and award costs against the party causing delay.
18) TRW’s cross-border case management: Dhaka • Dubai • London
From our bases in Dhaka, Dubai, and London, Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) Law Firm manages arbitrations under LCIA, DIAC, ICC, SIAC, and ad hoc rules. For clients operating across the Bay of Bengal–GCC–UK corridor, we:
■ Design timelines that fit the deal and the seat—fast where needed, flexible where law demands.
■ Harmonise institutional rules with seat-law requirements to protect enforceability.
■ Engineer data workflows (Bangladesh evidence, UAE operations, UK expert centres) so short timetables stay realistic.
■ Run emergency measures swiftly when assets or project milestones are at risk.
■ Plan enforcement from day one: mapping counterparties’ footprints in Bangladesh, the UAE, and the UK.
To speak with our arbitration team, visit tahmidurrahman.com (internal link) or use the contact details below.
19) A step-by-step blueprint you can copy into your next contract
Phase A: Before signing
■ Decide the seat; align with your enforcement map.
■ Pick an institution (LCIA/DIAC/ICC) with strong case-management tools.
■ Choose an award window (90–120 days post-hearing) with a “good-cause extension” valve.
■ Add anti-nullity and prejudice language.
■ Provide for emergency arbitrator and interim relief.
Phase B: At dispute notice
■ Nominate arbitrators quickly; propose a tight but realistic procedural order.
■ Push for early issues lists, page limits, and a focused document schedule.
■ Lock in hearing dates within six months (for medium complexity) where feasible.
Phase C: During proceedings
■ Front-load witness and expert work.
■ Use virtual or hybrid hearings to avoid calendar slippage.
■ Keep a clean record for any extensions—reasons, party input, proportionality.
Phase D: Post-hearing
■ Agree concise post-hearing briefs (or waive them if not needed).
■ Offer the tribunal a neutral award-production window (e.g., 60 days) with a single 30-day extension.
Phase E: Enforcement
■ Prepare translations and legalisations in advance for Bangladesh/UAE/UK filings.
■ Ready asset maps and bankable strategies (attachment, recognition, set-off).
20) Red flags to avoid when someone sends you a “speedy arbitration” draft
■ “Award shall be issued by [fixed calendar date], and any award thereafter is void.”
■ “No extensions shall be granted under any circumstances.”
■ “No post-hearing briefs permitted” (without regard to complexity).
■ “No document production” (blanket prohibition can backfire on fairness).
■ “Seat: a jurisdiction with strict automatic-nullity rules and no extension power.”
■ “Institution: none (ad hoc) and no appointing authority named.”
Where you see these, renegotiate—the risks to enforceability outweigh the benefits.
21) Comparative view (Bangladesh, Dubai, London) on timing culture
- Bangladesh: Courts respect arbitration but are attentive to fair hearing concerns. Tribunals and institutions sitting in the region will extend if evidence volume requires. Pragmatism with a fairness core.
- Dubai (Onshore & DIFC/ADGM): Strong institutional case management; courts are pro-enforcement. Timelines are encouraged; extensions are routinely granted on reasoned applications.
- London: Highly experienced tribunals operate with tight calendars; English courts are intervention-light but will act where real injustice appears. “Fast but fair” is the culture.
22) Sample internal governance memo (what your in-house team should circulate)
Subject: Using fixed deadlines in arbitration clauses—TRW policy
- Use firm target award windows (90–120 days post-hearing) with institution/tribunal discretion to extend for good cause.
- Prohibit “automatic nullity” language for late awards.
- Empower tribunals to pause the clock for party-caused delay and supervening events.
- Allow emergency arbitrator and interim relief without timetable constraints.
- Prefer seats and institutions aligned with our enforcement map (Dhaka/DIFC/ADGM/London).
- Keep a clean procedural record to defend any extension.
- Loop TRW’s arbitration team into drafting and escalations early.
Circulate to Legal, Commercial, and Project Controls.
23) Key takeaways for foreign companies contracting with Bangladeshi counterparties (and vice-versa)
■ Don’t import a “guillotine” clause from a different legal culture without stress-testing it against Bangladeshi, UAE, and English procedural fairness norms.
■ Integrate logistics: witness availability across Dhaka, Dubai, and London time zones; digital disclosure infrastructure; interpreter and notarisation lead times.
■ Use hybrid tools: combine fixed pleadings windows with tribunal discretion to extend; cap pages and issues; prioritise core categories in disclosure.
■ Enforcement-first mindset: draft deadlines that speed the case but won’t sink your award at recognition stage.
24) Conclusion
Fixed deadlines are neither a panacea nor a poison pill. They are precision instruments. Used well—with firm targets, good-cause extension valves, anti-abuse machinery, and seat-conscious drafting—they can deliver what businesses want: speed, cost control, and still-bankable enforceability in Dhaka, Dubai, and London.
Used badly—rigid guillotines, no extension authority, no prejudice test—they invite tactical delay and legal jeopardy. The art lies in writing a timetable that sets ambition without sacrificing justice.
TRW Law Firm’s cross-border arbitration lawyers design and run these playbooks every day for founders, lenders, project owners, and state-linked enterprises operating along the Bangladesh–GCC–UK corridor. If you’d like to test drive clauses tailored to your deals, reach out using the contacts below.
Contacts — Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) Law Firm
Dhaka (Head Office):
Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) Law Firm
House 410, Road 29, Mohakhali DOHS, Dhaka
Phone: +8801708000660 | +8801847220062 | +8801708080817
Email: [email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected]
Dubai:
Rolex Building, L-12, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai
London (UK Office):
330 High Holborn, London WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom.
—
Summary table (copy-paste for your deal checklist)
| Topic | What to Do | Why It Matters | Bangladesh Seat | Dubai (Onshore/DIFC/ADGM) | London |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Award Deadline | Set 90–120 days post-hearing with good-cause extension | Balances speed and fairness | Courts value due process; soft deadlines safer | Institutions can extend; pro-enforcement courts | Pragmatic; tribunals deliver quickly with short extensions |
| Pleadings Calendar | Tie to milestones; page limits; rolling disclosure | Manages scope without choking the record | Avoids “no time to be heard” challenges | Aligns with DIAC/DIFC/ADGM practices | Matches LCIA case-management culture |
| Anti-Nullity | Say no automatic invalidity for timing breaches | Blocks “gotcha” tactics | Reduces annulment risk | Preserves enforceability | English courts focus on prejudice |
| Stop-the-Clock | Suspend time for party-caused delay or force majeure | Discourages gamesmanship | Supports fairness record | Institutions/tribunals accept | Consistent with reasonableness ethos |
| Emergency Relief | Carve out from timetable | Safeguards assets and status quo | Fits local practice | Strong emergency/urgent mechanisms | Well-accepted in London practice |
| Joinder/Consolidation | Add timetable reset clause | Prevents unrealistic calendars | Helpful for subcontractor chains | Common in construction disputes | Common in finance/portfolio disputes |
| Seat & Institution | Choose with enforcement map in mind | Award must travel | Dhaka for domestic reach; consider DIFC/ADGM/London for international | Dubai offers onshore & offshore options | London is enforcement-friendly |
| Record-Keeping | Reasoned extension orders; both parties heard | Shields against set-aside | Critical | Critical | Critical |
| Industry Nuances | Construction: phased liability/quantum | Keeps complex cases on track | Big builds in Bangladesh | GCC mega-projects | UK experts/logistics |
| Internal Policy | “Firm target + extension valve + prejudice test” | Company-wide consistency | Aligns with courts | Aligns with institutions | Aligns with courts |
Prepared by the International Arbitration team at Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) Law Firm, with cross-border capability from Dhaka, Dubai, and London. For a tailored clause pack or a rapid review of your arbitration agreements, contact us via the numbers and emails above or visit tahmidurrahman.com.