Legal Guidance and Research / Experts / Leonora Riesenburg
Leonora Riesenburg#14077

Chartered Arbitrator Leonora Riesenburg , C.Arb

Leonora Riesenburg is an independent Chartered Arbitrator, Accredited Adjudicator, Accredited Mediator, and the Practice Owner of INTADR DMCC, based in the UAE for almost 2 decades since 2007. She is also an International Tenant at 4–5 Gray’s Inn Square, London. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb) and the Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Leonora is widely recognised as a leading ADR practitioner across the Middle East, Asia, and the UK. Leonora specialises in high-value, complex domestic and international disputes, with particular expertise in construction and infrastructure, real estate, power and energy, investment and shareholder disputes, banking and finance, and major commercial contracts.

She regularly sits as sole, presiding, and co-arbitrator in matters administered under the rules of DIAC (Dubai), HKIAC (Hong Kong), ICC (Paris), LCIA (London), SIAC (Singapore), and other leading institutions, with disputes frequently exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition to her casework, Leonora holds several influential governance and advisory roles. She serves on the Advisory Board of the Indonesia International Arbitration Centre (INIAC), the Governing Council of the Hyderabad Arbitration Centre (India), and the Global Advisory Panel of MICADR (Pakistan), and is a committee member of the Adjudication Society. She has previously served as Chair of CIArb UAE, an elected member of the CIArb Board of Management (London), and on the DIFC Courts Arbitration Division Working Group. Leonora is a regular lecturer, course director, and examiner for CIArb internationally and for RICS across the MENA region and the UK. She is a frequent speaker, author, and award-winning contributor to the development of modern dispute resolution practice.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 2005

Experience

  • INTADR DMCC (2020 - Present)
  • GGICO Co. PSC (2013 - 2020)
  • Galadari Advocates & Legal Consultants (2010 - 2013)

Membership

  • Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • Society of Adjudication
  • Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Swiss Arbitration Association
  • Lincoln’s Inn, London Inns of Court

Qualifications

  • LLM International Dispute Resolution (2014)
  • PG Dip Corporate and Commercial Law (2011)
  • Vocational Training for the Bar (2005)
  • BA Law/ Soc (Join honours) (2004)

Education

  • University of London/ Queen Mary (2011-2014)
  • BBP Law School (2004-2005)
  • University of Warwick / UK (2000-2004)

1 Contributions by Leonora Riesenburg

Without Prejudice in UAE‑Seated Arbitration: Dubai Onshore Developments, DIFC Practice, and Lessons from Dubai Cassation Case 486/2024
PRACTICE NOTES
Without Prejudice in UAE‑Seated Arbitration: Dubai Onshore Developments, DIFC Practice, and Lessons from Dubai Cassation Case 486/2024
Introduction This practice note reviews the ‘Without Prejudice’ (WP) principle under the onshore civil law of the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’), its policy foundations, and its application in Dubai‑seated arbitration, in light of the recent Dubai Court of Cassation Case (DCC Case) No. 486/2024. The WP doctrine traces its lineage to English common law. Among the leading authorities on WP in correspondence, the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335 affirmed a stringent approach to WP in the nineteenth century. Concerned that the very aim of the limitation might be defeated, the Appeal Court agreed it would be ill‑advised for courts to admit as evidence the conduct of litigants contained in letters written without prejudice. At that time, there was no exception regarding costs. The formulation ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ arose much later, in the 1975 English appeal of Calderbank v Calderbank. The contemporary statement of WP is derived from an equally frequently cited authority a century later—Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290. In Cutts v Head, the UK Court of Appeal underlined ‘…the underlying policy... [is] that parties should be’...
Arbitration
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.