LITT
Try LITT free
MIRIFA v MAHUR [2023] DIFC ARB 009 — Assessment of costs for Worldwide Freezing Order (24 October 2023)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke clarifies the court’s power to assess legal costs on paper following a Worldwide Freezing Order, emphasizing proportionality and the dangers of duplicating legal counsel.
OCIE v ORTENSIA [2020] DIFC ARB 009 — The limits of disclosure in ex parte recognition (19 February 2020)
This ruling clarifies the scope of the duty of full disclosure in without notice applications for the recognition of arbitral awards, emphasizing that the duty is limited to matters relevant to the Court's specific statutory discretion.
OBERLIN v OVIDIU [2026] DIFC ARB 008 — Proportionality in Arbitration Enforcement Costs
The DIFC Court clarifies the application of the proportionality principle in the assessment of legal costs following the successful recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
NASIB v NAVIDAD [2024] DIFC ARB 008 — Navigating the Threshold for Appellate Review and Stays of Enforcement
This order clarifies the procedural requirements for seeking permission to appeal an arbitral enforcement order and the high evidentiary burden required to obtain a stay of execution in the DIFC.
LIMSA v LORDON [2020] DIFC ARB 008 — The High Cost of Mischaracterizing Disciplinary Rulings as Arbitral Awards
This ruling clarifies the financial consequences of initiating jurisdictional challenges in the DIFC Courts under the guise of arbitration enforcement, specifically addressing the cost implications of discontinuance under RDC 34.15.
ORABELLE v ORZENIA [2026] DIFC ARB 007 — Jurisdictional limits on interim relief
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the absence of identifiable assets within the jurisdiction precludes the granting of worldwide freezing orders, even in support of foreign-seated arbitration.
NEVILLE v NIGEL [2024] DIFC ARB 006 — Dismissal of Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (09 October 2024)
The dispute arose from an application for interim injunctive relief filed by the Claimant, Neville, against the Defendant, Nigel, in anticipation of a prospective Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) arbitration.
NEVILLE v NIGEL [2024] DIFC ARB 006 — Navigating the 'Dubai Arbitration' Jurisdictional Labyrinth (31 July 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for appellate intervention in arbitration-related freezing orders, specifically addressing the interpretation of 'Dubai Arbitration' as a potential seat.
NEVILLE v NIGEL [2024] DIFC ARB 006 — Navigating the 'Dubai Arbitration' Jurisdictional Labyrinth (02 July 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the term "Dubai arbitration" in an ad hoc clause is context-dependent and does not automatically mandate a non-DIFC seat.
MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL v DIMENSIONS HEALTHCARE [2021] DIFC ARB 006 — Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (03 March 2021)
The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and a Services and License Contract (SLC) dated 1 February 2012, involving Medimpact International LLC and Medimpact International HK Limited (the Claimants) against Dimensions Healthcare LLC and Medimpact Arabia Limited (the Defendants).
ISAI v ISABELLE [2018] DIFC CFI 006 — Jurisdiction over non-DIFC seated arbitral awards
The litigation arose from a commercial dispute concerning shares in a restaurant located in Dubai. The Claimant, Isai, initiated arbitration proceedings under DIFC-LCIA Case No. 22, which resulted in a final award issued on 21 March 2017.
OLEKSEI v OLORUN [2026] DIFC ARB 005 — Summary assessment of costs and the exclusion of unregistered foreign legal fees
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the limits of recoverable costs in arbitration-related proceedings, emphasizing the strict prohibition on recovering fees for legal practitioners not registered under Part 1 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts.
OLEKSEI v OLORUN [2026] DIFC ARB 005 — The jurisdictional limits of interim relief in foreign-seated arbitrations (28 January 2026)
The DIFC Court clarifies that Article 15.4 of the New Court Law does not grant a "roving commission" for interim relief where there is no nexus to the DIFC or the potential for local enforcement of an arbitral award.
NASHRAH v NAJEM [2025] DIFC ARB 005 — Procedural alignment of jurisdictional appeals (10 September 2025)
Chief Justice Wayne Martin grants an extension of time and partial permission to appeal, ensuring that jurisdictional challenges in the Nashrah v Najem dispute are heard concurrently with related appellate proceedings to prevent inconsistent outcomes.
NAJEM v NASHRAH [2025] DIFC ARB 005 — Permission to appeal an anti-suit injunction (30 July 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal grants conditional permission to appeal an anti-suit injunction, setting the stage for a critical examination of jurisdictional boundaries in the wake of the DIFC-LCIA abolition.
NASHRAH v NAJEM [2025] DIFC ARB 005 — Dismissal of jurisdictional challenges and appeal applications (23 June 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces its robust stance on interim anti-suit injunctions, dismissing a multi-pronged challenge to its jurisdiction and procedural authority in a medical repatriation dispute.
NASHRAH v NAJEM [2025] DIFC ARB 005 — The Limits of Anti-Suit Injunctions in the Shadow of Redundant Arbitration Rules (19 February 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its supportive jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings that threaten the integrity of an arbitration agreement, even where the underlying contract references defunct DIFC-LCIA rules.
NASHRAH v NAJEM [2025] DIFC ARB 005 — The Limits of Anti-Suit Injunctions in the Shadow of Redundant Arbitration Rules (5 February 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reaffirms its commitment to maintaining the integrity of arbitral proceedings by upholding an interim injunction against parallel litigation.
Lachesis v Lacrosse [2021] DIFC ARB 005 — The limits of procedural challenges to arbitral awards
Lachesis sought to set aside the final award issued on 20 February 2020, which had found in favor of Lacrosse regarding charter disputes for a project in the Lacey. The Claimant advanced eight distinct grounds for challenge, ranging from procedural irregularities to alleged incapacity and public…
LUCINETHLUCINETH v LUTINALUTINA TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC ARB 005 — Dismissal of application to set aside arbitral enforcement (08 August 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the finality of arbitral awards by rejecting a two-month delayed challenge, clarifying that post-award asset fluctuations do not constitute a valid public policy defence against enforcement.
YYY Limited v ZZZ Limited [2017] DIFC ARB 005 — The jurisdictional paralysis caused by Decree 19 of 2016 (02 July 2017)
This ruling clarifies the immediate procedural consequences of a stay triggered by the Joint Judicial Committee under Decree 19 of 2016, specifically regarding the status of existing interim orders and the court's inability to grant ancillary relief.
GEORGIA CORPORATION v GAVINO SUPPLIES [2016] DIFC ARB 005 — The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in Award Enforcement (11 October 2016) [#1]
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its pro-enforcement mandate by rejecting speculative stay applications and fishing expeditions for information in the context of a JPY 3.7 billion arbitral award.
NAQID v NAJAM [2024] DIFC ARB 004 — The Primacy of the India-UAE Judicial Cooperation Agreement in Arbitral Enforcement
The DIFC Court confirms that the India-UAE Judicial Cooperation Agreement supersedes domestic arbitration law when enforcing Indian arbitral awards, effectively narrowing the grounds for set-aside applications.
NAQID v NAJAM [2024] DIFC ARB 004 — Procedural management of witness evidence in committal proceedings (26 September 2024)
The litigation arises from a substantial arbitral award issued in late 2023. The Claimant, Naqid, sought to enforce this award against the Defendant, Najam, through the DIFC Courts, triggering a complex series of enforcement and protective measures.