LITT
Try LITT free
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.
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.