The DIFC Court of First Instance has affirmed its authority to grant and maintain freezing injunctions in support of foreign litigation, dismissing a jurisdictional challenge by the defendant while awarding significant indemnity costs due to the defendant's deliberate breach of court orders.
What was the nature of the dispute between Quortia Ltd and Frank Irrling that necessitated a EUR 4,000,000 freezing injunction?
The litigation arises from a complex cross-border dispute involving allegations of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and extortion. The Claimant, Quortia Ltd, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, Frank Irrling, in the District Court of Paphos, Cyprus, under Case No. 690/25. Seeking to protect its position, Quortia Ltd applied to the DIFC Court for a domestic freezing injunction over assets held by Mr. Irrling within the UAE, specifically targeting accounts held with Mashreq Bank PSC.
The stakes involve a total value of EUR 4,000,000. The court scrutinized the underlying transactions, noting that the dealings between the parties bore the hallmarks of money laundering and potential circumvention of Canadian government sanctions. While the UAE does not recognize the specific sanctions regime in question, the court emphasized its cautious approach toward granting discretionary relief that might facilitate activities potentially violating foreign laws. As noted in the court's schedule of reasons:
There is no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to make a Freezing Order in aid of proceedings before a foreign court that may result in a judgment capable of recognition and enforcement by this Court.
Further details regarding the evidentiary basis for these claims can be found at the DIFC Courts Judgment Portal.
Which judge presided over the return hearing for CFI 117/2025 and in what division was the matter heard?
The matter was heard before H.E. Justice Michael Black KC, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The proceedings culminated in a return hearing held on 9 January 2026, following a series of interim orders issued by the same judge throughout December 2025.
What were the specific legal positions argued by Quortia Ltd and Frank Irrling regarding the court's jurisdiction and the continuation of the freezing order?
Quortia Ltd, represented by its legal team, argued that the freezing order was essential to prevent the dissipation of assets in the UAE while the substantive Cypriot proceedings were ongoing. They maintained that the defendant’s conduct—specifically his attempts to evade service and his subsequent dealings with assets—justified the court's intervention.
Conversely, Mr. Frank Irrling, represented by Mr. Robert Sliwinski, challenged the court's jurisdiction and sought the discharge of the freezing order. The defendant’s strategy involved a two-pronged attack: contesting the court's authority to hear the matter and attempting to vacate the injunction. However, the court found that the defendant’s procedural actions effectively conceded the court's authority. As stated in the judgment:
It therefore follows that Mr Irrling is to be treated as having accepted that the Court has jurisdiction to try the Claim (see Rules of the DIFC Court (“RDC”) Rule 12.5(1)).
What was the precise doctrinal issue the court had to resolve concerning the Defendant’s Jurisdiction Challenge and the Discharge Application?
The court was tasked with determining whether it possessed the requisite jurisdiction to maintain a freezing injunction in aid of foreign proceedings and whether the defendant had successfully justified the discharge of that injunction. The court had to reconcile the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge with the reality of his conduct during the litigation. The court framed the procedural landscape as follows:
Thus, the matters before the Court on 9 January 2025 were (in logical order): (1) The Defendant’s Jurisdiction Challenge; and (2) The Claimant’s application to continue the injunction and the Defendant’s Discharge Application, which are two sides of the same coin.
How did Justice Michael Black KC apply the balance of probabilities test to the Defendant’s awareness of the Injunction?
Justice Black KC evaluated the defendant’s conduct, particularly his actions following the issuance of the initial freezing order on 8 December 2025. The court examined whether Mr. Irrling had notice of the injunction and whether his subsequent dealings with assets constituted a breach of the court's directions. The judge concluded that the evidence pointed toward a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court’s authority. The court’s reasoning regarding the timeline of the defendant's knowledge is explicit:
On the balance of probabilities, on the material currently before me, it appears more likely to me that Mr Irrling did become aware of the Injunction on 9 December 2025.
This finding of fact was central to the court’s decision to maintain the injunction and to award costs on an indemnity basis, as it established a pattern of non-compliance and unreasonable conduct.
Which specific RDC rules and legal principles were applied to determine the court's jurisdiction and the assessment of costs?
The court relied heavily on the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, RDC Rule 12.5(1) was invoked to establish that the defendant’s actions constituted an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion under the RDC to award costs on an indemnity basis, a departure from the standard basis, justified by the defendant's "deliberate misconduct" and "unreasonable conduct to a high degree." The court’s authority to issue a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings was treated as a settled principle of DIFC law, provided the foreign judgment is capable of future recognition and enforcement within the DIFC.
How did the court utilize the principle of indemnity costs to penalize the Defendant’s conduct?
The court applied the principle that costs should follow the event, but elevated the assessment to an indemnity basis due to the defendant's specific litigation behavior. Justice Black KC identified two primary reasons for this punitive cost award: the defendant's deliberate breach of a court direction regarding the handling of assets after becoming aware of the injunction, and his overall unreasonable conduct during the proceedings. The court’s rationale for this assessment is captured in the following passage:
I am satisfied that the costs should follow the event and Quortia should have its costs of the proceedings to date and that they should be assessed on the indemnity basis for the following reasons, I have found: (1) Deliberate misconduct in breach of a direction of the Court in Mr Irrling dealing with assets after he was aware of the Injunction; (2) Unreasonable conduct to a high degree in connection with the litigation.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the freezing order and the monetary award for costs?
The court dismissed both the Defendant’s Jurisdiction Challenge and the Defendant’s Discharge Application. Consequently, the Freezing Order granted on 9 December 2025 was ordered to continue until further order of the court. Additionally, the court made an immediate assessment of the Claimant’s costs, ordering the defendant to pay AED 1,098,601.16. The court noted:
In the circumstances, I will make an immediate assessment of the Claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis in the sum of AED 1,098,601.16.
The court also confirmed the procedural validity of the costs claim, noting:
The Statement of Costs is made and verified by a Statement of Truth signed by a member of the Claimant’s legal team proving that the costs have been incurred.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners dealing with freezing injunctions in the DIFC?
This decision serves as a clear warning to litigants that the DIFC Court will not tolerate attempts to evade its orders or challenge its jurisdiction after engaging in conduct that implies acceptance. The ruling reinforces the court’s robust stance on maintaining freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings, even when the underlying facts involve complex allegations of fraud or potential sanctions evasion. Practitioners should anticipate that the court will prioritize the integrity of its orders and will not hesitate to impose indemnity costs where a party is found to have engaged in deliberate misconduct or unreasonable litigation tactics. As Justice Black KC noted at the close of the hearing:
At the close of submissions, I indicated that the Freezing Order would continue until further Order, that I was minded make a costs order in the Claimant’s favour and that I would provide my reasons in writing thereafter.
Where can I read the full judgment in Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling [2026] DIFC CFI 117?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1172025-quortia-ltd-v-frank-irrling or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-117-2025_.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific external case law citations were provided in the source text excerpt. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically RDC Rule 12.5(1) regarding jurisdiction.