Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Zurich International Life [2025] DIFC CFI 019 — Jurisdictional challenge regarding non-DIFC establishment status (09 September 2025)

What was the nature of the AED 5 million claim brought by Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan against Zurich International Life?

The dispute arose from an alleged breach of confidentiality and subsequent financial losses linked to an insurance policy. The Claimant, Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan, initiated proceedings on 25 February 2025, asserting that the Defendant, Zurich International Life Limited, had mishandled confidential information regarding his insurance policy, which he had assigned to Mashreq Bank as collateral for a loan.

In proceedings commenced on 25 February 2025, the Claimant, Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan (the “Claimant”), sought damages of AED 5 million as compensation for what was described as a breach of confidentiality and financial losses relating to the Insurance policy No.6226591 in respect of which it was claimed that the Defendant, Zurich International Life Limited (the “Defendant”), was the insurer.

The Claimant alleged that the Defendant provided false information to Mashreq Bank, claiming the policy was invalid due to unpaid premiums, despite records indicating the policy remained valid until 2028. The Claimant argued that this disclosure caused the bank to deny his loan request, which in turn forced him into a distressed sale of his property. He sought compensation for the difference between the sale price and the market value, alongside other personal losses. Further details of the claim can be found at the official DIFC Courts judgment portal.

Which judge presided over the jurisdictional challenge in CFI 019/2025 and when was the hearing held?

The jurisdictional challenge was heard by H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst in the Court of First Instance. The hearing took place on 16 June 2025, with the final order and written reasons subsequently issued on 9 September 2025.

What were the primary legal arguments advanced by the Claimant and Zurich International Life regarding the DIFC Court's jurisdiction?

The Defendant, Zurich International Life, challenged the court's jurisdiction by asserting that it did not meet the definition of a "DIFC Body" or "DIFC Establishment" under the relevant legislation. Counsel for the Defendant argued that the company’s license had expired in 2019 and that it was in the process of deregistration, meaning it lacked the necessary nexus to the DIFC to be subject to the Court's jurisdiction.

By an Application Notice dated 26 March 2025, the Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to hear the Claim.

The Claimant, appearing as a litigant in person, attempted to establish jurisdiction by arguing that the Defendant’s activities fell within the scope of the DIFC’s regulatory reach. However, the Defendant maintained that the burden of proof rested with the Claimant to demonstrate a "good arguable case" that the claim fell within the jurisdictional gateways.

In its skeleton argument, the Defendant submitted that where there is a dispute concerning jurisdiction it was up to the Claimant to establish a good arguable case that the claim fell within jurisdiction.

What was the precise doctrinal question the Court had to answer regarding the status of Zurich International Life as a DIFC Establishment?

The Court was required to determine whether the Defendant qualified as a "DIFC Establishment" or "Licensed DIFC Establishment" at the time the claim was filed, pursuant to Article 14 of the DIFC Courts Law No. (2) of 2025. The doctrinal issue centered on whether the mere historical presence of an entity or its pending deregistration status was sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the DIFC Courts, or if an active, valid license was a mandatory prerequisite for the Court to exercise its authority over the defendant.

How did Justice Bathurst apply the test for jurisdiction under Article 14 of the DIFC Courts Law No. (2) of 2025?

Justice Bathurst applied a strict temporal test to determine the Defendant's status. He reasoned that jurisdiction must be assessed based on the entity's status at the time the claim was initiated. Because the Defendant’s license had expired in 2019, it could not be considered a "Licensed DIFC Establishment" at the time of the filing in 2025.

Thus, for Article 14(A)(1) to confer jurisdiction on the Court it must be shown that at the time the claim was made the Defendant was a DIFC Body or a DIFC Establishment which includes a Licensed DIFC Establishment.

Furthermore, the Court examined whether the claim could fall under Article 14(A)(2) or (3), which relate to contracts performed within the DIFC or incidents occurring within the DIFC. Justice Bathurst concluded that the Claimant failed to provide a plausible evidential basis to satisfy these gateways.

Having regard to this material the evidence of the Claimant to which I have referred at [38]-[39] does not give rise to a plausible albeit contested evidential basis to found jurisdiction under Article 14(A)(2).

Which specific statutes and rules were cited by the Court in determining the jurisdictional challenge?

The Court primarily relied on Article 14 of the DIFC Courts Law No. (2) of 2025, which defines the jurisdictional scope of the DIFC Courts. Additionally, the Court referenced the DIFC Companies Law (Article 133) and the DIFC Operating Law No. 7 of 2018 to interpret the status of the Defendant. Procedurally, the Court invoked RDC 12.7, which provides the mechanism for setting aside a Claim Form where the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Defendant also referenced Article 5(A)(1)(a) of Law No. 12 of 2024 in its initial challenge.

How did the Court utilize the cited precedents, such as Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen, in its reasoning?

The Court utilized Al Khorafi & Ors v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited & Anor [2011] DIFC CA 003 and Tavira Securities Limited v Re Point Ventures Fzco & Ors [2017] CFI 026 to establish the principle that the relevant jurisdictional provision is that which is in force at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. By applying this, Justice Bathurst ensured that the 2025 Law was the governing standard. Additionally, the Court cited Globe Investment Holdings Ltd v Commercial Bank of Dubai & Ors [2023] DIFC CFI 028 to reinforce the principle that the DIFC Courts will not disregard the corporate personality of an entity, thereby rejecting any attempt to pierce the corporate veil or attribute liability to the entity based on expired operational status.

What was the final disposition of the Court regarding the Claim Form and the associated costs?

The Court allowed the Defendant's application in its entirety. Justice Bathurst ordered that the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the proceedings and, pursuant to RDC 12.7, set aside the Claim Form and the service of the Claim Form. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of the application, with the amount to be assessed by the Registrar if the parties could not reach an agreement.

What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners dealing with jurisdictional challenges in the DIFC?

This case serves as a critical reminder that the DIFC Courts maintain a strict, formalistic approach to jurisdictional gateways. Practitioners must verify the current licensing status of a defendant at the exact time of filing. The ruling clarifies that an entity’s historical presence or pending deregistration is insufficient to establish jurisdiction if the entity is not a "Licensed DIFC Establishment" at the commencement of the action. Furthermore, it highlights that the Court will not infer jurisdiction based on contractual "competent court" clauses if the fundamental statutory requirements for a DIFC nexus are not met.

Where can I read the full judgment in Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Zurich International Life Limited [2025] DIFC CFI 019?

The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0192025-atul-ashok-amir-chand-dhawan-v-zurich-international-life-limited or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-019-2025_20250909.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• DIFC Courts Law No. (2) of 2025, Article 14
• DIFC Companies Law, Article 133
• DIFC Operating Law No. 7 of 2018
• RDC 12.7
• Law No. 12 of 2024, Article 5(A)(1)(a)