LITT
Try LITT free
Lirit v Liwanu [2021] DIFC ARB 011: The Limits of Pre-Arbitration Procedural Challenges
How the DIFC Courts shut the door on attempts to re-characterize tiered dispute resolution as 'arbitral procedure'. On 8 August 2021, H.E.
Gaetan Inc v Geneva Investment Group [2016] DIFC ARB 010: The Fatal Intersection of Commercial Agency and Seat Ambiguity
How a failure to define the arbitral seat and a collision with Federal Law No. 18 of 1981 derailed a multi-million dollar dispute.
Narciso v Nash [2024] DIFC ARB 009: The Limits of Jurisdictional Challenges in the Shadow of Anti-Suit Injunctions
Justice Michael Black KC reaffirms the DIFC Court’s robust stance on protecting arbitral agreements against parallel proceedings in Sharjah.
Oberlin v Ovidiu [2026] DIFC ARB 008: The Proportionality Threshold in Arbitration Enforcement Costs
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi clarifies the court's discretion in awarding costs for successful enforcement applications. On 26 March 2026, H.E.
Nasib v Navidad and Nabeel [2024] DIFC ARB 008: The High Bar for Stays Pending Appeal
How the DIFC Courts balance the finality of arbitral awards against the procedural rights of appellants On 13 August 2024, H.E.
Orabelle v Orzenia [2026] DIFC ARB 007: The Jurisdictional Threshold for Worldwide Freezing Orders
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi clarifies that the DIFC Courts’ remedial powers cannot bypass the statutory requirement for a nexus within the jurisdiction. On January 30, 2026, H.E.
Medimpact International v Dimensions Healthcare [2021] DIFC ARB 006: The Mechanics of Transparent Enforcement
How the DIFC Courts balanced confidentiality with the public interest in the recognition of international arbitral awards. On 3 March 2021, H.E.
Lufto v Linide [2022] DIFC ARB 011: The High Cost of Procedural Obfuscation in Award Enforcement
How a failure to navigate the DIFC’s clear enforcement pathways turned a USD 80 million award dispute into a lesson on judicial patience. On 7 July 2022, H.E.
Lucinethlucineth v Lutinalutina Telecom Group [2019] DIFC ARB 005: The High Cost of Procedural Obstruction in Award Enforcement
How Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dismantled a meritless public policy challenge to secure the integrity of ICC arbitral awards. On 8 August 2019, H.E.
Loralia Group v Landen Saudi Company [2018] DIFC ARB 004: The Limits of Public Policy Challenges to Contingency Fee Awards
How the DIFC Courts reinforced the finality of arbitral costs awards against public policy interference. On 23 April 2020, H.E.
Murif v Mipy [2023] DIFC ARB 003: The Limits of Proportionality in Arbitral Costs Assessments
How a procedural oversight in the Bill of Costs triggered a successful appeal against the Registrar’s assessment. On 21 November 2023, H.E.
Pearl Petroleum v Kurdistan Regional Government [2017] DIFC ARB 003: The Limits of Alternative Service and Sovereign Immunity
How Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke balanced the enforcement of multi-billion dollar arbitral awards against the mandatory procedural requirements of the Riyadh Convention.
Gauge Investments v Ganelle Capital [2016] DIFC ARB 003: The Arbitrability of Regulatory Breaches in the DIFC
Justice Sir Richard Field clarifies the boundary between DFSA regulatory oversight and private contractual arbitration.
WCT Berhad v Meydan Group [[2016] DIFC ARB 003](https://legal-wires.com/uae-difc/gauge-investments-v-ganelle-capital-2016-difc-arb-003-the-arbitrability-of-regulatory-breaches-in-the-difc/): The Limits of Judicial Recusal in High-Stakes Arbitration
How Justice Sir David Steel dismantled a tactical recusal attempt in the long-running Meydan litigation saga
Fran v Faimida [2015] DIFC ARB 002: The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in Arbitral Enforcement
Justice Sir David Steel’s decisive rejection of parallel annulment tactics in the DIFC Courts On January 22, 2015, Justice Sir David Steel handed down a stern rebuke to a defendant attempting to stall the inevitable.
Fabiola v Faddey [2015] DIFC ARB 001: Balancing Arbitral Finality Against Parallel Annulment Challenges
How Sir John Chadwick’s intervention in the Fabiola dispute defined the DIFC’s cautious approach to enforcement during pending local court challenges.
Lachesis v Lacrosse [2021] DIFC ARB 005: The High Bar for Challenging Arbitral Awards on Public Policy Grounds
How Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi closed the door on merit-based appeals disguised as public policy challenges. On March 22, 2021, H.E.
Ginette v Geary [2015] DIFC ARB 012: The Doctrine of Apparent Authority in Arbitral Enforcement
How the DIFC Courts solidified the enforceability of arbitration agreements signed by agents lacking express authority. On 7 April 2016, H.E.
Egan v Eava [2013] DIFC ARB 002: Why the DIFC Courts Rejected the 'Public Policy' Shield Against Enforcement
Justice Sir Anthony Colman’s seminal ruling on the limits of jurisdictional challenges in the enforcement of arbitral awards. On July 29, 2015, Justice Sir Anthony Colman delivered a decisive blow to procedural obstructionism in the DIFC Courts.
Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050: The Reach of Post-Award Interim Measures Under the 2025 Court Law
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC clarifies the scope of the DIFC’s supportive jurisdiction in the wake of a USD 600 million arbitral award. On January 22, 2026, H.E.