LITT
Try LITT free
OM v OTTILIE [2025] DIFC CFI ARB 017 — Procedural failure and the limits of jurisdictional challenges
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that failure to adhere to strict RDC timelines for challenging enforcement orders renders jurisdictional objections unsustainable, regardless of arguments regarding conduit jurisdiction.
LATEEF v LIELA [2022] DIFC ARB 017 — Contempt of court for breach of worldwide freezing orders (24 March 2022)
Justice Wayne Martin finds multiple defendants in contempt of court for the dissipation of AED 7 million and failure to comply with asset disclosure obligations, resulting in a referral to the Attorney General of Dubai.
LATEEF v LIELA [2021] DIFC ARB 017 — Arbitration enforcement and jurisdictional scope of freezing orders (13 December 2021)
The dispute originated from an ICC Arbitration (Case No. 123) in which the Claimants, Lateef and Lukman, sought to enforce an arbitral award against the Respondents, Liela and others.
LEDGER v LEEOR [2022] DIFC ARB 016 — Refusal of anti-suit injunction in seat-ambiguous construction dispute (07 October 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the stringent requirements for granting anti-suit injunctions when the seat of arbitration is contested and proceedings are already underway in the Dubai Courts.
Obert v Ondray [2025] DIFC ARB 014 — Recognition of a EUR 100,000 arbitral award following a disputed consultancy agreement termination (09 October 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reaffirms the principle of separability, confirming that an arbitration clause survives the termination of a consultancy agreement despite attempts to challenge the award on jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
MEDIA GATES v KUWAIT PROJECTS COMPANY [2019] DIFC ARB 013 — Procedural stay of Part 32 applications pending appellate resolution
A consent order formalizing the suspension of Part 32 proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance pending the outcome of a related appellate application.
NOVAK v NORWOOD [2024] DIFC ARB 012 — The Limits of Public Policy Challenges in Arbitral Enforcement
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the finality of arbitral awards, rejecting attempts to relitigate corruption findings and evidentiary weight under the guise of public policy.
LIMEO INVESTMENT & REAL ESTATE v LANDIA EDUCATIONAL SERVICES [2019] DIFC ARB 012 — Resolving Ambiguity in Arbitration Clauses
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the interpretation of arbitration agreements referencing the LCIA, confirming that references to the "LCIA Arbitration Centre in the DIFC" designate the DIFC-LCIA.
NAIDOO v NOFRET [2025] DIFC ARB 011 — Assessing proportionality in arbitration-related costs (27 May 2025)
The litigation arose from a failed application by the Claimant, Naidoo, seeking interim injunctive relief and supervisory intervention regarding an ongoing arbitration under DIAC Case No. 240031.
NAIDOO v NOFRET [2025] DIFC ARB 011 — The High Bar for Challenging Arbitral Case Management (9 May 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reaffirms the principle of non-intervention, clarifying that procedural case management orders issued by a DIAC tribunal are not subject to judicial review as "awards" under the Arbitration Law.
NAZEER v NOAH [2024] DIFC ARB 011 — The Limits of Raising Foreign Law Objections in Arbitration
The dispute originated from two Hotel Operation and Management Agreements (OMAs) concerning properties in Saudi Arabia. Nazeer, the owner, alleged that the manager, Noah, engaged in a "sham" transaction—the Allotment Agreement—to artificially inflate performance metrics and avoid termination under…
LUFTO v LINIDE [2022] DIFC ARB 011 — The high cost of procedural obfuscation in award enforcement (07 July 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the stringent requirements for challenging ex parte enforcement orders, emphasizing that vague applications for extensions of time will be summarily dismissed.
Lirit v Liwanu [2021] DIFC ARB 011 — Pre-arbitration conditions and the limits of 'arbitral procedure'
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that failure to adhere to tiered dispute resolution clauses does not constitute a procedural defect under the DIFC Arbitration Law, reinforcing the finality of arbitral awards.
NEVEN v NOLE [2024] DIFC ARB 010 — Costs allocation following contested interim relief applications (25 September 2024)
The dispute centered on an application for interim relief filed by Neven on 23 May 2024. The claimant sought two distinct forms of relief: a restrictive injunction to prevent the respondent, Nole, from declaring or distributing dividends or returning capital to shareholders, and a mandatory order…
NEVEN v NOLE [2024] DIFC ARB 010 — Interim relief and the limits of document production in arbitration (25 June 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the principle of arbitral primacy, refusing to grant interim injunctive relief where the applicant fails to demonstrate genuine urgency or a credible risk of asset dissipation.
NEVEN v NOLE [2024] DIFC ARB 010 — Interim relief and the limits of document production in arbitration
Justice Andrew Moran denies an application for a broad injunction and document production, opting instead to formalize a restrictive undertaking regarding dividend distributions.
HAYRI INTERNATIONAL v HAZIM TELECOM [2017] DIFC ARB 010 — Clarifying the finality of anti-suit injunctions (23 May 2017)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke’s clarificatory ruling confirms the finality of the DIFC Court’s determination regarding the seat of arbitration and the enforceability of anti-suit injunctions against parallel foreign proceedings.
HAYRI INTERNATIONAL v HAZIM TELECOM [2016] DIFC ARB 010 — The Anti-Suit Injunction as a Shield Against Procedural Sabotage (09 March 2017)
The DIFC Court confirms its authority to restrain foreign litigation through anti-suit injunctions, affirming the primacy of the DIFC-LCIA rules in seat determination.
HAYRI INTERNATIONAL v HAZIM TELECOM [2017] DIFC ARB 010 — The Anti-Suit Injunction as a Shield Against Procedural Sabotage
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke affirms the DIFC Court’s supervisory authority by restraining foreign litigation intended to obstruct arbitration.
HAYRI INTERNATIONAL v HAZIM TELECOM [2016] DIFC ARB 010 — Protecting the seat via anti-suit injunction (25 February 2017)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke’s order serves as a critical precedent for the DIFC Court’s willingness to restrain foreign litigation that threatens the integrity of a contractually agreed arbitration seat.
GAETAN v GENEVA INVESTMENT GROUP [2016] DIFC ARB 010 — The jurisdictional limits of appointing arbitrators in commercial agency disputes
This judgment clarifies that the DIFC Courts will not intervene to appoint an arbitrator where the underlying agreement is a registered commercial agency under UAE law or where the parties have failed to explicitly designate the DIFC as the seat of arbitration.
NARCISO v NASH [2024] DIFC ARB 009 — Anti-suit injunctions and the seat of arbitration (20 June 2024)
The DIFC Court confirms its robust authority to restrain foreign proceedings in support of arbitration agreements, reinforcing the primacy of the seat despite the transition from DIFC-LCIA to DIAC under Decree 34.
MIRIFA v MAHUR [2025] DIFC ARB 009 — Enforcement of a USD 1.6 billion ICC Award through cross-examination and enhanced disclosure (21 August 2025)
The litigation concerns the enforcement of a substantial arbitral award against three defendants, Mahur, Meison, and Mepur. The Claimant, Mirifa, is seeking to recover funds following an ICC arbitration that concluded in early 2023.
MIRIFA v MAHUR [2024] DIFC ARB 009 — The Court’s zero-tolerance stance on delayed asset disclosure
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi reinforces the necessity of strict compliance with freezing orders, denying a third defendant’s request for a multi-week extension to provide mandatory asset disclosure.