LITT
Try LITT free
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.
Ozan v Owain [2026] DIFC ARB 029: Why RDC Part 43 Remains a Self-Contained Enforcement Fortress
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that jurisdictional challenges cannot hijack the summary nature of arbitral award enforcement. On April 9, 2026, H.E.
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.
TECHTERYX v IG LIMITED [2026] DIFC DEC 001 — Expanding disclosure obligations for financial institutions in stablecoin fraud (3 April 2026)
The litigation arises from a massive financial fraud involving the alleged misappropriation of reserves backing a prominent stablecoin. Techteryx, the claimant, contends that significant portions of these reserves were diverted through complex channels, eventually landing in accounts held with the…
TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (17 October 2025)
The DIFC Digital Economy Court clarifies the boundaries of collateral document use and the enforcement of disclosure obligations in a high-stakes USD 456 million asset freeze.
TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (17 October 2025) [#1]
The DIFC Digital Economy Court confirms its robust stance on interim relief, maintaining a USD 456 million freeze against Aria Commodities DMCC to prevent the dissipation of assets linked to alleged stablecoin misappropriation.
TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (21 May 2025)
The DIFC Digital Economy Court reaffirms its authority to grant proprietary injunctions and worldwide freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings involving complex stablecoin reserve misappropriation.
TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (19 May 2025)
The DIFC Digital Economy Court continues to exert stringent oversight over a USD 456 million asset dispute, balancing the maintenance of worldwide freezing injunctions with rigorous procedural demands for security for costs.
TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (24 March 2025)
The litigation concerns a high-stakes claim of fraudulent conspiracy and constructive trust involving a massive transfer of stablecoin-related funds. The Claimant, Techteryx, a BVI-registered entity, alleges that Aria Commodities DMCC (Aria DMCC) is the recipient of USD 456 million transferred from…