STEVEN IVANKOVICH v KJM MARINE [2025] DIFC CFI 068 — Anti-suit injunction against parallel Dubai Court proceedings (26 March 2025)

The DIFC Court of First Instance has granted an interim anti-suit injunction restraining KJM Marine from pursuing parallel litigation in the Dubai Courts, affirming the primacy of the parties' exclusive jurisdiction agreement contained within their Joint Venture Agreement.

Why did Steven Ivankovich seek an anti-suit injunction against KJM Marine in CFI 068/2024?

The dispute arises from a breakdown in a joint venture between Steven Ivankovich and KJM Marine LLC, which was established to manufacture premium leisure maritime vessels. The Claimant alleges that KJM Marine wrongfully attempted to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) on 10 September 2024, citing purported defaults regarding purchase orders for luxury yachts. The Claimant maintains that the termination was invalid and that the underlying financial disputes are inextricably linked to the JVA, which contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring the DIFC Courts.

The Claimant initiated the DIFC proceedings to resolve these governance and contractual disputes. However, KJM Marine subsequently commenced parallel proceedings in the Dubai Courts. The Claimant argued that this parallel litigation was a tactical maneuver designed to circumvent the agreed-upon forum and harass the Claimant. As noted in the application:

By way of application notice dated 24 February 2025, the Claimant seeks an anti-suit injunction against KJM on the basis that it has brought proceedings in the non-DIFC Dubai Courts which are vexatious, oppressive and unconscionable and which, on KJM’s own case, are in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the DIFC Courts.

Which judge presided over the application for an anti-suit injunction in Steven Ivankovich v KJM Marine?

The application for an interim anti-suit injunction was heard by H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place on 17 March 2025, with the resulting Order with Reasons issued on 26 March 2025.

What were the competing legal arguments advanced by Steven Ivankovich and KJM Marine regarding the validity of the Dubai Claim?

The Claimant, represented in the proceedings, argued that the Dubai Claim initiated by KJM Marine was a clear breach of the JVA’s exclusive jurisdiction clause. He contended that the issues raised in the Dubai Courts—specifically those relating to the termination of the JVA and the status of the "Additional Contributions"—fell squarely within the scope of the DIFC jurisdiction agreement. The Claimant asserted that the parallel proceedings were vexatious and intended to cause him undue hardship.

Conversely, KJM Marine, represented by Mr. Brown KC, sought to justify the Dubai proceedings by arguing that the dispute involved matters outside the scope of the JVA, specifically pointing to the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the third defendant, KJI Marina Boats Manufacturing LLC, which contains a separate dispute resolution clause favoring the Dubai Courts. KJM Marine further alleged that the Claimant had failed to meet financial obligations under specific Purchase Orders, which they characterized as separate from the JVA, thereby attempting to decouple the claims from the DIFC’s exclusive jurisdiction.

What was the precise doctrinal question regarding the DIFC Court's jurisdiction over the JVA-related claims?

The Court was tasked with determining whether it possessed the requisite jurisdiction to restrain a party from pursuing proceedings in the onshore Dubai Courts when those proceedings allegedly breached an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The doctrinal issue centered on whether the DIFC Court could exercise its inherent power to grant an anti-suit injunction to protect its own jurisdiction, particularly when the respondent invokes non-contractual grounds or alternative jurisdictional clauses (such as those in an MOA) to justify parallel litigation. The Court had to reconcile the existence of the JVA’s exclusive jurisdiction clause with the respondent's attempt to characterize the dispute as one falling under the onshore Dubai Commercial Companies Law.

How did H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani apply the test for granting an anti-suit injunction?

Justice Jhangiani applied the established principles governing anti-suit injunctions, focusing on whether the foreign proceedings were vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable. The Court emphasized that where parties have entered into a clear exclusive jurisdiction agreement, the pursuit of proceedings elsewhere is prima facie a breach of contract and an abuse of process. The Court found that the Dubai Claim was an attempt to undermine the agreed-upon forum for the JVA disputes.

In evaluating the request, the Court specifically considered the "Non-Contractual Ground" for the injunction, assessing whether the conduct of the First Defendant warranted the Court's intervention to protect the integrity of its own proceedings. As stated in the judgment:

I turn to consider whether I should exercise my discretion to order the Anti-Suit Injunction applied for by the Claimant on the basis of the Non-Contractual Ground.

The Court concluded that the DIFC was the natural forum for the dispute, noting that the Dubai Claim was fundamentally inconsistent with the parties' contractual bargain.

Which specific statutes and rules did the Court rely upon to establish its authority to issue the injunction?

The Court relied on Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law (Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended), which provides the statutory basis for the DIFC Court's jurisdiction over civil and commercial disputes. The Court also referenced RDC 25.1, which empowers the Court to grant interim remedies, including injunctions. The Court noted the relevance of the Law Relating to the Application of DIFC Law, specifically Article 10, in determining the governing law of the Purchase Orders where no express choice of law was present.

Regarding the jurisdictional basis, the Court cited:

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction over the claims under the JVA under Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law (Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended).

How did the Court distinguish or apply existing precedents regarding anti-suit injunctions?

The Court drew upon Emirates NBD v KBBO CPG [2020] DIFC CFI 045 to confirm its inherent jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunctions. It also utilized the reasoning in Bocimar International NV v Emirates Trading Agency LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008, affirming that the test for the "appropriate" forum does not differ from the "just and convenient" standard. The Court further relied on Nael v Niamh Bank [2024] DIFC CA 015 to clarify that Decree 29 is not the exclusive mechanism for resolving jurisdictional disputes, thereby allowing the Court to exercise its discretion to protect its jurisdiction against vexatious parallel proceedings.

What was the final disposition and the nature of the relief granted to the Claimant?

The Court granted the interim anti-suit injunction, ordering KJM Marine to cease pursuing the Dubai Claim against the Claimant until judgment is rendered in the DIFC proceedings. The Court declined to extend the injunction to the Third Party (Neirah) as they were not a party to the application. Furthermore, the Court awarded the Claimant his costs on an indemnity basis, citing the abusive nature of the First Defendant's conduct.

The First Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis. The parties may file brief submissions on costs, of no greater than 5 pages in length, by no later than 4pm on Monday, 7 April 2025.

The Court also noted the rationale for the indemnity costs:

Given that the Claimant has succeeded in his application for anti-suit injunctive relief, and taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including my finding that KJM’s conduct is an abuse of this Court’s process, I award the Claimant his costs of this application on an indemnity basis.

What are the wider implications for practitioners regarding parallel litigation and exclusive jurisdiction clauses?

This decision serves as a stern warning to litigants who attempt to bypass DIFC exclusive jurisdiction clauses by initiating parallel proceedings in the Dubai Courts. It reinforces the DIFC Court’s proactive stance in protecting its jurisdiction and preventing the use of foreign proceedings as a tactical tool to frustrate contractual obligations. Practitioners must anticipate that the DIFC Court will readily characterize such parallel actions as "vexatious, oppressive and unconscionable" and will not hesitate to impose indemnity costs on parties who engage in such abuse of process. The case highlights that even when complex corporate structures or non-contractual claims are involved, the Court will look to the substance of the dispute to ensure the parties' original bargain is upheld.

Where can I read the full judgment in Steven Ivankovich v KJM Marine [2025] DIFC CFI 068?

The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0682024-1-kjm-marine-llc-2-mohammad-saleh-moosa-hassan-aj-jasmi-3-kji-marina-boats-manufacturing-llc-v-1-kjm-marine-llc-2-kji-marina-boats-manufacturing-llc-1-steven-ivankovich-2-neirah

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• DIFC Law No. 2 of 2025
• DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
• Judicial Authority Law (Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended), Article 5(A)(2)
• Commercial Companies Law (Federal Decree No. 32 of 2021)
• RDC 9.54
• RDC 25.1