LITT
Try LITT free
OLEN v ORETA [2025] DIFC ARB 031 — The Proportionality Threshold in Post-Award Costs Recovery (2 October 2025) [#2]
A focused assessment of the DIFC Court’s discretion to apply proportionality reductions to legal costs following the successful recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
YYY v ZZZ [2017] DIFC ARB 005 — The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War and the Limits of the Joint Judicial Committee Stay
The dispute centers on a 30-year Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) executed in 2013 between YYY and ZZZ. Following a breakdown in the relationship, ZZZ obtained an ex parte injunction in the DIFC Court to prevent YYY from interfering with its management of the hotel.
Ludhyan v Lucina [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Expedited procedural timelines and committal proceedings
Registrar Nour Hineidi issues a strict procedural order truncating timelines for declaratory relief and committal applications in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
Ludhyan v Lucina [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Anti-suit injunction against onshore proceedings (26 October 2020)
The dispute centers on the Applicant, Ludhyan, seeking to protect its position in an ongoing arbitration by preventing the Respondent, Lucina, from continuing parallel litigation in the onshore Dubai Courts. The core of the conflict involves Dubai Court Case No.
LUDHYAN v LUCINA [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Anti-suit injunction against parallel Dubai Court proceedings
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi grants an ex parte anti-suit injunction to restrain parallel litigation in the Dubai Courts, pending a return date hearing.
GINETTE v GEARY MIDDLE EAST [2015] DIFC ARB 012 — Enforcement of arbitral award upheld despite challenges to signatory authority (07 April 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the validity of an arbitration agreement signed by a non-director, reinforcing the doctrine of apparent authority and the limited scope for challenging arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law.
GIACINTA v GILAM [2016] DIFC ARB 004 — The Jurisdictional Shield Against Parallel Annulment Tactics (20 September 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its autonomy in enforcing arbitral awards, rejecting attempts to leverage the Joint Judicial Committee’s stay powers under Decree 19 of 2016 to obstruct enforcement.
Eava v Egan [2014] DIFC ARB 005 — Enforcement of ICC Awards and the Limits of Dilatory Challenges
The dispute originated from a commercial transaction in February 2011, wherein Egan, a Dubai-based air cargo company, agreed to purchase three aircraft engines from Eava, a U.S. company specializing in the sale and lease of commercial aircraft engines.
CHENSHAN LIU v DUBAI WATERFRONT [2016] DIFC ARB 004 — The Limits of the Joint Judicial Committee’s Jurisdictional Reach
Justice Sir David Steel affirms the DIFC Courts' exclusive statutory authority to enforce arbitration awards, ruling that the Joint Judicial Committee cannot unilaterally extinguish enforcement powers.
BANYAN TREE CORPORATE v MEYDAN GROUP [2013] DIFC ARB 003 — The Jurisdictional Gateway That Defined DIFC Arbitration (2 April 2015)
The Court of First Instance confirms the enforceability of a DIAC award, solidifying the DIFC Courts' role as a pro-enforcement conduit for onshore arbitral awards.
CESFIN VENTURES v AL GHAITH HOLDING COMPANY [2022] DIFC ARB 017-2020 — Contempt of court and referral to the Attorney General (24 March 2022)
Justice Wayne Martin rules that deliberate breaches of Worldwide Freezing Orders by Al Ghaith Holding Company and associated parties warrant referral to the Dubai Attorney General due to the insufficiency of DIFC Court penal powers.
FLETCHER I LLC v FLORANCE LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS [2015] DIFC ARB 002 — Enforcement of a USD $26.5 million arbitral award (29 July 2015)
Justice Sir Anthony Colman confirms the DIFC Court’s robust stance on enforcing arbitral awards, rejecting attempts to relitigate jurisdictional findings and clarifying the irrelevance of asset location within the DIFC.
FISKE v FIRUZEH [2015] DIFC ARB 001 — The constitutional challenge to DIFC arbitral enforcement (05 January 2015)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its jurisdictional independence by rejecting a constitutional challenge to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law.
EGAN v EAVA [2013] DIFC ARB 002 — Enforcement of USD 26.5 million arbitral award (29 July 2015)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that the enforcement of an arbitral award does not require a jurisdictional nexus within the DIFC, nor does the absence of assets within the jurisdiction provide a valid ground for refusing recognition.
OMANAND v ONDREI [2026] DIFC ARB 050 — Continuation of freezing orders in support of foreign arbitral awards (22 January 2026)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of a Final Arbitral Award issued on 16 December 2025 by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.
ORATIO v ORANGIA [2026] DIFC ARB 043 — Proportionality in Procedural Costs Assessments
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the principle of proportionality by slashing a successful party’s costs claim for a non-oral procedural application by 40%.
ORATIO v ORANGIA [2026] DIFC ARB 043 — Proportionality in Procedural Costs Assessments (03 March 2026)
The dispute centered on the assessment of legal costs following the unsuccessful Strike-Out Application filed by Orangia. Having successfully defended the application, the Respondent sought to recover costs incurred during the proceedings.
ORATIO v ORANGIA [2026] DIFC ARB 043 — The Limits of Security for Award Applications
The DIFC Court clarifies that the consolidation of set-aside and enforcement proceedings does not trigger the discretionary security provisions of Article 44(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law.
ORATIO v ORANGIA [2026] DIFC ARB 043 — The Limits of Expert Evidence in Public Policy Challenges (06 February 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that expert evidence on UAE public policy is not a prerequisite for set-aside applications, reinforcing the Court’s competence to adjudicate procedural fairness under the Arbitration Law.
Okeke v Obike [2026] DIFC ARB 039: The Strict Enforcement of Statutory Time Limits in Arbitration Set-Aside Applications
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi reinforces the finality of arbitral awards by dismissing a late-filed challenge to a DIAC partial award. On 5 March 2026, H.E.
OKEKE v OBIKE [2026] DIFC ARB 039 — Strict adherence to the three-month limitation period for set aside applications
The dispute between Okeke and Obike originated from an insurance coverage matter, specifically concerning the interpretation of policy provisions and the subsequent dismissal of claims by an arbitral tribunal.
ORTON v OAKES [2025] DIFC ARB 035 — The High Threshold for Serving Sitting Arbitrators (26 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the convenience of email communication in arbitration does not constitute "good reason" to bypass formal service rules, particularly when the respondents include sitting members of an arbitral tribunal.
Mibot v Mfast [2022] DIFC ARB 035 — The limits of waiver and the binding nature of arbitration agreements (25 January 2022)
This ruling clarifies that a claim for a declaration of the validity of an arbitration agreement is distinct from the underlying dispute and cannot be considered 'satisfied' by prior litigation if the validity of the agreement was not in issue.
OHTLI v ONORA [2026] DIFC ARB 034 — Assessing Proportionality in Costs Assessment (24 March 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the application of the proportionality principle in the assessment of costs following an unsuccessful application for permission to appeal.