How did Nadil and Noshaba attempt to establish DIFC jurisdiction over Nameer and Naseema for a UAE-wide freezing order?
The Claimants, Nadil and Noshaba, sought an urgent, without-notice application for a UAE-wide freezing order against the First Respondent, Nameer, and an injunction against the Second Respondent, Naseema. The Claimants argued that the DIFC Court should grant this relief to mirror existing foreign court orders, asserting that DIFC-issued orders would provide "more teeth" due to the Respondents' perceived unreliability in complying with foreign mandates.
The Claimants’ legal strategy relied on a dual-pathway approach, attempting to characterize the application either as a fresh claim for interim relief or as an enforcement action for the existing foreign orders. Counsel for the Claimants argued that the enactment of the New Law did not diminish the Court's inherent power to grant such relief. As noted in the court records:
Therefore, it is submitted that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to grant a freezing order, and ancillary relief against Nameer, and an injunction and ancillary relief against Naseema pursuant to Article 31(4) of the New Law.
Despite these arguments, the Claimants failed to demonstrate that the Respondents, the underlying assets, or the relevant transactions had any substantive connection to the DIFC, ultimately leading to the rejection of the application.
Which judge presided over the Nadil v Nameer hearing in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The application was heard by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place in April 2025, following the filing of the Part 8 Claim Form and the urgent application earlier that same month.
What specific legal arguments did the Claimants advance regarding the applicability of Law No. 2 of 2025?
Counsel for the Claimants argued that the introduction of Law No. 2 of 2025 (the "New Law") did not restrict the Court’s jurisdiction to matters strictly within the DIFC. They contended that it was "improbable" that the legislative intent behind the New Law was to curtail the Court's ability to grant interim relief in support of foreign proceedings. By invoking Article 31(4) of the New Law, the Claimants sought to maintain the status quo of the DIFC as a forum capable of issuing ancillary orders even where the primary dispute is situated in a foreign jurisdiction.
What was the determinative legal question regarding the Court's jurisdiction under the New Law?
The central legal question was whether the DIFC Court possesses the jurisdictional authority to grant interim relief—specifically a freezing order and injunction—over assets located outside the DIFC when there is no direct nexus between the parties, the assets, or the underlying dispute and the DIFC. The Court had to determine if the "New Law" created a stricter jurisdictional threshold than the previous regime, effectively barring the Court from acting as a "conduit" for foreign orders in the absence of a clear connection to the Centre.
How did H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the jurisdictional test to the Claimants' application?
The Court conducted a bifurcated analysis, evaluating the application first as a "fresh claim" and second as an "enforcement action." Regarding the fresh claim, the Judge found that the Claimants failed to satisfy the jurisdictional gateways established in Article 14 of the New Law. The Court emphasized that the mere desire for "more teeth" in an order does not substitute for the required jurisdictional nexus.
However, the introduction of the new law, Law No. 2 of 2025 Concerning the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (the “New Law”), raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant such relief over assets outside its immediate jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, in my view the determinative point of contention that remains central is the application of the relevant articles of the New Law on jurisdiction.
The Court concluded that because the Claimants were foreign parties seeking relief against assets not shown to be within the DIFC, and because the Respondents resided outside the DIFC, the application could not proceed.
Which specific statutes and legislative provisions were cited in the determination of the Court's jurisdiction?
The Court’s analysis was primarily governed by Law No. 2 of 2025 Concerning the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. Specifically, the Court examined Article 14, which defines the jurisdictional gateways for new claims, and Article 31, which relates to the Court's powers regarding interim relief. Additionally, the Court referenced Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 (the "Old Law") to contrast the previous jurisdictional gateways with the current requirements. Article 24 of DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004 was also considered in the context of the Court's general authority.
How did the Court distinguish the application of Article 14 and Article 31 of the New Law?
The Court clarified that Article 14 of the New Law serves as the primary gatekeeper for new claims, requiring a direct link to the DIFC (such as a DIFC entity, contract, or incident). The Court noted:
None of these gateways apply, as the Claimant is a foreign party seeking an order against assets that have not been shown to be within the DIFC or part of any DIFC entity, and the Respondents reside outside the DIFC.
Regarding Article 31(2), the Court held that it did not provide a standalone basis for jurisdiction in this context. The Court further noted that if the application were treated as an enforcement action, it would still fail because the Claimants could not demonstrate that the assets were within the DIFC or that the Respondents had a sufficient presence to justify enforcement of the foreign orders within the Centre.
What was the final disposition of the application and the Court's order regarding costs?
H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani ordered that the application be rejected in its entirety. Consequently, the request for a UAE-wide freezing order, the injunction against Naseema, and the ancillary disclosure orders were denied. The Court made no order as to costs, meaning each party was left to bear their own legal expenses associated with the failed application.
How does this decision change the practice for litigants seeking interim relief in the DIFC?
This ruling signals a significant shift in the DIFC Courts' approach to "conduit jurisdiction." Practitioners must now anticipate that the DIFC Courts will strictly enforce the nexus requirements of Law No. 2 of 2025. Litigants can no longer rely on the DIFC as a forum for mirroring foreign freezing orders or injunctions if they cannot affirmatively prove that the assets or the parties have a substantial connection to the DIFC. The "fresh claim" gateway under Article 14 is now a high bar that requires more than just a desire for the procedural advantages of a DIFC order.
Where can I read the full judgment in Nadil v Nameer [2025] DIFC CFI 001?
The full judgment can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/1-nadil-2-noshaba-v-1-nameer-2-naseema
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Carmon Reestrutura-Engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais, (SU) LDA v Cuenda | [2024] DIFC CA 003 | Cited regarding the Court's power to grant interim remedies in support of foreign proceedings. |
Legislation referenced:
- Law No. 2 of 2025 Concerning the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (Articles 14, 31)
- Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 (Article 5(A))
- DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004 (Article 24)