The DIFC Court of First Instance has granted an interim injunction requiring a restaurant operator to cease operations and vacate a hotel concession area following a substantial breach of payment obligations, affirming the Court's authority to protect commercial interests pending trial.
What is the nature of the dispute between Golden Sands Hotel and Brighton Rock Restaurant and what is the total amount at stake?
The dispute arises from a Concession Agreement entered into on 11 September 2023, under which Brighton Rock Restaurant L.L.C operated a restaurant within the Hilton Dubai The Walk, managed by Golden Sands Hotel L.L.C. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to pay agreed fees, leading to a termination of the agreement on 17 October 2025. The Claimant subsequently initiated legal proceedings to recover outstanding debts and regain possession of the premises.
As noted in the court records:
On 11 November 2025, the Claimant issued a Part 8 claim seeking declarations, including that the Agreement is not a lease, that the DIFC Courts have exclusive jurisdiction, that the termination was valid, and seeking injunctive relief and monetary relief comprising AED 1,329,253.78 (for unpaid fees and contractual interest), plus continuing damages.
The financial stakes are significant, with the Claimant seeking over AED 1.3 million in arrears. The dispute is further complicated by the Defendant's attempt to initiate separate proceedings in the onshore Dubai Courts. As documented:
On 30 October 2025, the Defendant filed a legal notice with the onshore Dubai Courts alleging disconnection of services and claiming AED 200,000 in damages. The Claimant denies those allegations and contests onshore jurisdiction.
Which judge presided over the application for interim relief in CFI 106/2025 and when was the order issued?
The application for an interim injunction was heard by H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere in the DIFC Court of First Instance. Following the hearing held on 16 January 2026, the Court issued its Order with Reasons on 20 January 2026.
What were the primary legal arguments advanced by Golden Sands Hotel and Brighton Rock Restaurant regarding the termination of the Concession Agreement?
The Claimant, represented by Mr. Mackenzie, argued that the Concession Agreement was validly terminated under clause 16.3(a) due to the Defendant’s persistent failure to settle substantial arrears despite multiple extensions and formal notices of default. The Claimant maintained that the agreement was a commercial concession rather than a lease, thereby granting the hotel owner the right to exclude the operator upon termination.
The Defendant, conversely, sought to justify its non-payment by invoking Articles 246 and 247 of the UAE Civil Code, alleging that the Claimant had committed prior breaches—specifically regarding the disconnection of services—which entitled the Defendant to withhold payment. The Defendant further attempted to leverage this argument in the onshore Dubai Courts to challenge the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the termination.
What was the specific jurisdictional and doctrinal question the Court had to resolve regarding the interim injunction?
The Court was required to determine whether the Claimant had established a sufficiently strong case to justify the extraordinary remedy of an interim injunction, particularly whether the Defendant’s reliance on the UAE Civil Code provided a plausible defense to the claim of breach of contract. Furthermore, the Court had to address the jurisdictional challenge posed by the Defendant’s parallel filing in the onshore Dubai Courts, ensuring that the DIFC Court’s authority under the governing agreement was upheld.
How did H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere apply the American Cyanamid test to the facts of this case?
Justice Le Miere applied the principles established in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd to assess whether the Claimant was entitled to interim relief. The Court evaluated the strength of the Claimant's case against the Defendant’s purported defenses. Upon review, the Court found the Defendant’s reliance on the UAE Civil Code to be unsubstantiated by the contemporaneous evidence, which showed a clear history of non-payment and failed attempts to cure the default.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the necessity of preventing further unrecoverable losses for the Claimant. As stated in the judgment:
the Defendant’s Articles 246 and 247 defence is not plausible, and the Claimant’s case is sufficiently strong to justify the grant of relief at this stage.
The Court concluded that the balance of convenience heavily favored the Claimant, as the Defendant’s continued operation of the restaurant without payment caused ongoing financial prejudice that could not be adequately compensated by damages alone.
Which DIFC laws and RDC rules were central to the Court’s determination of jurisdiction and procedure?
The Court relied on Article 14(B) of Law No. 2 of 2025, which provides the legal basis for the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction where parties have agreed in writing to submit to the Court’s authority. Procedurally, the application was governed by Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which empowers the Court to grant interim remedies.
The Court also referenced the following:
- Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 15 (regarding the Court's powers).
- RDC Part 8 (for the filing of the underlying claim).
- RDC Part 23 and Part 29 (regarding applications and trial directions).
How did the Court utilize English case law precedents in the context of the interim injunction application?
The Court utilized American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 as the foundational authority for determining whether to grant an interim injunction. By applying this test, the Court moved beyond a mere assessment of the merits to determine if there was a "serious question to be tried" and whether the "balance of convenience" favored the Claimant. The Court used this precedent to weigh the potential harm to the Claimant (continued loss of revenue and occupation of the premises) against the potential harm to the Defendant (loss of business operations), ultimately finding that the Claimant’s position was robust enough to warrant the intervention.
What was the final disposition of the application and what specific orders were made regarding the Relevant Area?
The Court granted the interim injunction in favor of the Claimant. The Defendant was ordered to cease accessing and operating from the "Relevant Area" within seven days of the order. The Court also provided a mechanism for the Defendant to remove its equipment and chattels by appointment, ensuring an orderly handover.
As noted in the application details:
On 14 November 2025, the Claimant filed the present Part 25 application for an interim injunction prohibiting access to and/or operation from the Relevant Area, and for a short stay to allow the clause 28.2 negotiation period to expire.
The Court reserved the issue of costs for the trial judge, ensuring that the final allocation of legal expenses would be determined after the full merits of the case are heard in February 2026.
What are the wider implications of this decision for commercial operators within the DIFC?
This decision serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will not tolerate the use of unsubstantiated defenses—such as vague allegations of prior breach—to justify the continued occupation of premises after a contractual termination. Practitioners should note that the Court is prepared to grant mandatory-style relief if the respondent's defense lacks a factual basis in the contemporaneous record.
As the Court observed regarding the nature of the relief:
An injunction may be mandatory in substance when it requires the respondent to take positive steps, such as vacating premises or dismantling existing operations. Conversely, where an injunction merely restrains future conduct, it remains prohibitory.
Litigants must now anticipate that the Court will prioritize the protection of the applicant’s commercial rights when the respondent’s conduct appears to be a tactical delay rather than a genuine legal dispute.
Where can I read the full judgment in Golden Sands Hotel L.L.C Trading As Hilton Dubai The Walk v Brighton Rock Restaurant L.L.C [2026] DIFC CFI 106?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1062025-golden-sands-hotel-llc-trading-hilton-dubai-walk-v-brighton-rock-restaurant-llc
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd | [1975] AC 396 | Test for interim injunction |
Legislation referenced:
- Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 14(B)
- Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 15
- RDC Part 8
- RDC Part 23
- RDC Part 25
- RDC Part 29
- UAE Civil Code, Articles 246 and 247