LITT
Try LITT free
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.
MIRMA v MOBAL [2025] DIFC ARB 004 — Finality of ICC Awards and Appellate Gatekeeping (27 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal confirms the high threshold for challenging arbitral awards, rejecting attempts to relitigate contractual variations and tortious liability under the guise of public policy.
MIRMA v MOBAL [2024] DIFC ARB 004 — Finality of ICC Awards and Appellate Gatekeeping
The DIFC Court of Appeal confirms the dismissal of challenges to an ICC arbitral award, reinforcing the high threshold for appellate intervention in arbitration enforcement.
MIRMA v MOBAL [2023] DIFC ARB 004 — Finality of ICC Awards and Appellate Gatekeeping (12 September 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the procedural requirements for enforcing arbitral awards, confirming that recognition claims cannot be brought as counterclaims and reinforcing the high threshold for challenging arbitral finality.
LORALIA GROUP v LANDEN SAUDI COMPANY [2018] DIFC ARB 004 — Public Policy Challenges to Arbitral Cost Awards
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the finality of arbitral awards, ruling that a tribunal’s inclusion of a success-based fee component in a costs award does not inherently violate UAE public policy.
MURIF v MIPY [2023] DIFC ARB 003 — Permission granted to appeal costs assessment (21 November 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for granting permission to appeal against a Registrar’s cost assessment, emphasizing the necessity of proportionality and alignment between the Bill of Costs and the specific orders issued by the Court.
PEARL PETROLEUM COMPANY v THE KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ [2017] DIFC ARB 003 — Sovereign immunity waiver and the mandatory nature of the Riyadh Convention (20 August 2017)
The DIFC Court affirms that while contractual waivers of sovereign immunity are enforceable, the Riyadh Convention mandates strict adherence to international service procedures, overriding local rules on alternative service.
GAUGE INVESTMENTS v GANELLE CAPITAL [2016] DIFC ARB 003 — The Arbitrability of Regulatory Breaches (08 June 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms that private civil claims founded on regulatory breaches are arbitrable, rejecting arguments that such disputes are reserved for the Dubai Financial Services Authority or contrary to UAE public policy.
Likitif v Luvaun [2022] DIFC ARB 028: The Primacy of Arbitration Clauses in Subcontractual Disputes
How the DIFC Courts reinforce the jurisdictional boundary between commercial invoices and master agreements On October 25, 2022, H.E.
WCT Berhad v Meydan Group [2016] DIFC ARB 003 — Judicial recusal and the threshold of bias (08 February 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for judicial recusal, affirming that robust judicial criticism of counsel and prior participation in related appellate panels do not constitute evidence of bias.
BANYAN TREE CORPORATE v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC ARB 003 — Permission to appeal procedural orders regarding legal representation (24 January 2017)
The DIFC Court of Appeal grants permission to appeal, scrutinizing the procedural mechanisms governing the cessation of legal representation and the court's power to issue retroactive replacement orders.
BANYAN TREE CORPORATE v MEYDAN GROUP [2015] DIFC ARB 003 — Final recognition and enforcement of a DIAC award
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the enforcement of a multi-million dollar DIAC arbitral award, confirming the finality of the Banyan Tree jurisdictional precedent.
BANYAN TREE CORPORATE v MEYDAN GROUP [2014] DIFC ARB 003 — The Procedural Gateway to Appellate Review
This order marks the critical procedural shift in the Banyan Tree litigation, where the DIFC Court of First Instance granted leave to appeal a landmark judgment concerning the enforcement of DIAC arbitral awards.
MUFRA v MAPART [2023] DIFC ARB 002 — Interim Injunctions and the Threshold for Defences
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high evidentiary bar for interim injunctive relief, confirming that a respondent’s plausible defence—even if not fully tested—precludes the automatic granting of an injunction.
EDWARD DUBAI v EEVI REAL ESTATE PARTNERS [2015] DIFC ARB 002 — The High Cost of Procedural Obstruction
The litigation concerns the enforcement of a DIAC arbitral award issued on 19 July 2015, following a protracted contractual dispute regarding the construction of a building known as "the Tower" within the DIFC.