This order formalizes the extension of an existing injunction against First Abu Dhabi Bank and FAB Securities, ensuring the preservation of the status quo while the DIFC Court finalizes the procedural roadmap for the underlying dispute.
Why did Larmag Holding B.V. seek an injunction against First Abu Dhabi Bank and FAB Securities in CFI 030/2019?
The dispute arises from an intended action brought by Larmag Holding B.V. against First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC and FAB Securities LLC, alongside two additional intended defendants, Mr. Abdulla Saeed Aljabri and Elite Holding Group Limited. The core of the matter involves the Applicant’s efforts to secure assets and prevent potential dissipation or unauthorized movement of funds while the Court determines the merits of the underlying claim. The stakes are underscored by the Applicant’s commitment to provide security for the injunction, specifically the payment of EUR 350,000 into the Court.
The necessity for the injunction was predicated on the need to maintain the position of the parties during the pendency of the jurisdictional challenge. As the litigation progressed, the Court required the Applicant to provide financial security to mitigate potential prejudice to the Respondents. The order issued on 8 August 2019 serves to bridge the gap between the initial interim relief granted on 19 July 2019 and the final determination of the Applicant’s subsequent application dated 29 July 2019. The procedural requirements for the parties are clearly delineated:
The Respondents to file and serve any submissions in response to the Applicant's submissions dated 5 August 2019 by 4pm on Thursday, 8 August 2019.
The ongoing nature of this dispute reflects the complexities inherent in multi-party banking litigation within the DIFC, where the interplay between corporate entities and individual defendants necessitates rigorous judicial oversight to ensure that any eventual judgment remains enforceable.
Which judge presided over the continuation of the injunction in CFI 030/2019?
Justice Sir Richard Field presided over this matter within the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order issued on 8 August 2019 follows a series of procedural steps, including hearings held on 17 and 18 July 2019 and a pivotal Jurisdictional Ruling delivered by Justice Sir Richard Field on 4 August 2019. The Court’s active management of the case, including the scheduling of further submissions and a hearing listed for late August 2019, reflects the judge’s direct involvement in navigating the jurisdictional and injunctive complexities of the case.
What were the primary arguments advanced by Larmag Holding B.V. and the Respondents regarding the continuation of the injunction?
Larmag Holding B.V. argued for the necessity of maintaining the injunction to protect the subject matter of the intended claim, emphasizing the risk of asset dissipation. The Applicant’s position was bolstered by their compliance with the Court’s directive to pay EUR 350,000 into Court as security, demonstrating a commitment to the integrity of the proceedings. By seeking the continuation of the order, the Applicant aimed to prevent any actions by the Respondents that would render a future judgment nugatory.
Conversely, the Respondents, First Abu Dhabi Bank and FAB Securities, challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute. While the Jurisdictional Ruling of 4 August 2019 confirmed that the Court does have jurisdiction, the Respondents remained engaged in the procedural battle regarding the scope and necessity of the interim relief. The parties were directed to exchange further submissions to address the specific application filed by Larmag on 29 July 2019, with the Court setting a strict timetable for these filings:
The Applicant to file and serve any submissions in reply to the Respondents' submissions by 4pm on Wednesday, 14 August 2019.
This exchange of submissions is intended to allow the Court to weigh the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm before deciding whether to maintain the injunction on a more permanent basis or discharge it.
What was the specific legal question the Court had to answer regarding the continuation of the injunction?
The primary legal question before the Court was whether the interim injunction, originally granted on 19 July 2019, should remain in force pending the final determination of the Applicant’s application dated 29 July 2019. This required the Court to assess whether the jurisdictional threshold had been met—which was confirmed by the ruling of 4 August 2019—and whether the balance of justice favored the continued restraint of the Respondents' activities. The Court had to determine if the security provided by the Applicant was sufficient to protect the Respondents against the potential for an unjustified injunction, while simultaneously ensuring the Applicant’s potential claim was not defeated by the Respondents' actions.
How did Justice Sir Richard Field apply the test for continuing an injunction in the context of the jurisdictional ruling?
Justice Sir Richard Field’s reasoning was anchored in the established principle that interim relief is a discretionary tool used to preserve the status quo until the Court can adjudicate the substantive issues. Having already issued a Jurisdictional Ruling on 4 August 2019, the Court was satisfied that it possessed the authority to hear the claim. The reasoning process involved balancing the Applicant's need for protection against the Respondents' right to conduct their business without undue interference.
The Court’s decision to continue the injunction was a procedural necessity to prevent the "Application" of 29 July 2019 from becoming moot. By linking the duration of the injunction to the final determination of that application, the Court ensured that the parties remained in a state of equilibrium. The Court also facilitated the inclusion of additional parties in the proceedings:
Permission is granted for this Order to be served by the Applicant on the Intended Third and Fourth Defendants by email to the addresses stated in Paragraph 7 of the Injunction Order.
This step demonstrates the Court’s focus on ensuring that all relevant parties are brought within the scope of the proceedings, thereby minimizing the risk of fragmented litigation and ensuring that the final order will be effective against all intended defendants.
Which DIFC statutes and RDC rules were central to the Court’s authority in CFI 030/2019?
The Court’s authority to issue and continue the injunction is derived from the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those governing interim remedies. The Court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings and ensure the efficacy of its orders. While the specific RDC rules were not cited in the brief order text, the Court’s actions are consistent with RDC Part 25, which provides the framework for interim injunctions. Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis for the Court’s intervention is rooted in the Judicial Authority Law (Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004), which defines the scope of the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction over civil and commercial disputes.
How did the Court utilize the Jurisdictional Ruling of 4 August 2019 to support the continuation of the injunction?
The Jurisdictional Ruling of 4 August 2019 served as the foundational prerequisite for the continuation of the injunction. By confirming that the Court had jurisdiction over the Respondents, Justice Sir Richard Field removed the primary obstacle to the Court’s exercise of its coercive powers. The Court used this ruling to transition from a state of "provisional jurisdiction" to a more settled procedural posture, allowing the Court to move forward with the substantive application of 29 July 2019. This ruling effectively validated the Applicant’s choice of forum and provided the necessary legal cover for the continued restriction of the Respondents' assets.
What was the final disposition and the specific orders made by the Court on 8 August 2019?
The Court ordered that the Injunction Order issued on 19 July 2019 continue in full force and effect until the Application of 29 July 2019 is finally determined or until further order of the Court. The Court established a strict timeline for the filing of submissions, requiring the Respondents to respond by 8 August 2019 and the Applicant to reply by 14 August 2019. A hearing for the Application was scheduled for no earlier than 25 August 2019. Costs were reserved, meaning the Court will determine the liability for legal expenses at a later stage, likely upon the final resolution of the Application.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners handling banking injunctions in the DIFC?
This case highlights the critical importance of securing jurisdictional clarity early in the proceedings when seeking interim relief. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court will require clear evidence of financial security—such as the EUR 350,000 paid into Court here—before maintaining significant injunctive relief against banking institutions. Furthermore, the case demonstrates the Court’s willingness to use email service for intended defendants, provided there is a clear link to the original injunction order, which streamlines the process of bringing multiple parties into a single action. Litigants must anticipate that once jurisdiction is confirmed, the Court will move rapidly to set a rigorous timetable for submissions, leaving little room for procedural delay.
Where can I read the full judgment in Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2019] DIFC CFI 030?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0302019-larmag-holding-bv-vs-1-first-abu-dhabi-bank-pjsc-2-fab-securities-llc
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-030-2019_20190808.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific precedents cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 (Judicial Authority Law)