OLEKSEI v OLORUN [2026] DIFC ARB 005 — The jurisdictional limits of interim relief in foreign-seated arbitrations (28 January 2026)

What was the nature of the dispute between Oleksei and Olorun, and what specific relief were the applicants seeking?

The dispute arose from a contested election held on 19 December 2025 regarding the Board and President of the First Respondent. The Applicants, who had formed an electoral list known as “l’Alternativa per il Futuro,” were excluded from the ballot by the Second and Third Respondents, who acted as managers of the First Respondent. This exclusion effectively prevented the First Applicant from running for President and the other Applicants from standing for the Board, leading to the election of the Fourth Respondent.

The Applicants initiated arbitration proceedings in Milan and sought urgent interim injunctive relief from the DIFC Court to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of that arbitration. Specifically, they requested an order to restrain the Respondents from implementing the election results and an order requiring the preservation of all electoral records and legal opinions related to the contested vote. The core of the Applicants' claim was that the DIFC Court should intervene to prevent the Respondents from acting on the disputed election results until the Milan-seated tribunal could adjudicate the validity of the electoral process.

As noted in the court’s reasoning regarding the nature of the application:

The applicant claims no interest in the absence but seeks an inhibition of dealings with them simply in order to keep them available for possible future execution to satisfy an unconnected claim.

The full details of the proceedings and the court's analysis of these claims can be found at Oleksei v Olorun [2026] DIFC ARB 005.

Which judge presided over the Oleksei v Olorun hearing, and in which division of the DIFC Courts was this matter adjudicated?

The matter was heard by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place on 26 January 2026, with the resulting Order with Reasons issued on 28 January 2026.

What were the primary legal arguments advanced by the Applicants and the Respondents regarding the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction?

The Applicants argued that the DIFC Court possessed the authority to grant the requested injunctions under Article 15.4 of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (the “New Court Law”) and Article 24.3 of the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008. They contended that the court should preserve the status quo to ensure that the eventual arbitral award from the Milan Chamber of Arbitration would remain effective and capable of implementation.

Conversely, the Fourth Respondent, supported by the First Respondent at the hearing, challenged the court’s jurisdiction. They argued that the DIFC Court lacked the requisite nexus to the dispute, as the underlying election took place in onshore Dubai and the requested measures were not to be taken within the DIFC. They further argued that even if jurisdiction existed, the injunctions failed on the merits, citing the American Cyanamid tests, the adequacy of damages, and the lack of utility in granting an injunction when the potential arbitral award could not be executed within the DIFC.

What was the precise jurisdictional question the court had to answer under Article 15.4 of the New Court Law?

The court was required to determine whether the DIFC Court has the power to grant interim or precautionary measures in aid of foreign-seated arbitration when the subject matter of the dispute—and the potential enforcement of the resulting award—has no connection to the DIFC. Specifically, the court had to interpret whether the "precautionary measures" contemplated by Article 15.4 of the New Court Law extend to restraining actions taken in onshore Dubai that are subject to foreign arbitration, or if such measures are strictly limited to actions that must be taken within the DIFC jurisdiction.

How did Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test for jurisdiction under Article 15.4 of the New Court Law?

Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke applied a restrictive interpretation of the court's jurisdictional reach. He emphasized that for the DIFC Court to grant interim relief, there must be a clear nexus between the requested measure and the DIFC. The judge reasoned that because the contested election occurred onshore and the resulting arbitral award would not be enforceable within the DIFC, the court lacked the necessary jurisdictional hook.

The court’s reasoning focused on the fact that the requested injunction was not a precautionary measure to be taken within the DIFC, but rather an attempt to interfere with corporate governance matters occurring outside the court's territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction. As the court held:

As a matter of jurisdiction, therefore, what the Applicants seek does not fall within the terms of Article 15.4.

The court further clarified that the hypothetical nature of the enforcement of the Milan-seated award rendered the requested injunction futile, as there was no prospect of the DIFC Court being called upon to execute a judgment in the terms of the putative award.

Which specific statutes and rules did the court reference in its determination of the Oleksei application?

The court primarily relied on Article 15.4 of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (the “New Court Law”), which governs the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to hear applications for interim or precautionary measures. The Applicants also attempted to invoke Article 24.3 of the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008, though the court noted that this provision did not assist the Applicants' case. Additionally, the court referenced RDC Part 25, which outlines the procedural requirements for interim remedies.

Regarding the scope of Article 15, the court noted:

Article 15 of the New Court Law, under the heading “Interim and Precautionary Measures” provides that “the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for interim or precautionary measures relating to ………..

The court also explicitly dismissed the relevance of the Arbitration Law in this specific context, stating:

I should say here, that no reliance was placed on Article 24.3 of the Arbitration Law and I agree that it adds nothing to the debate and do not therefore consider it further.

Which earlier cases did the court rely on to interpret the scope of its injunctive powers?

The court referenced Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd to distinguish the nature of the injunction sought by the Applicants. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke noted that the principles in Broad Idea regarding freezing injunctions did not support the Applicants' request for an interlocutory injunction that essentially sought substantive relief.

Furthermore, the court drew upon Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities and Trafigura Pte Ltd v Prateek Gupta to analyze the interpretation of Article 15.4. The court also cited Carmon Reestrutura v AnonioCatete Lopes Cuenda regarding the availability of interim remedies. The court applied the logic from Carmon and Techteryx to conclude that the risk of a judgment being thwarted must be assessed in relation to the DIFC’s own enforcement capabilities. As the court observed:

Transported into the case of an interlocutory injunction of the kind sought here, the question is whether execution of a judgement in the DIFC would be thwarted without such relief to which the answer is no because no such judgement in the terms of the putative award could be executed in the DIFC in any event.

What was the final outcome of the Oleksei v Olorun application, and what orders were made regarding costs?

The court dismissed the Applicants' Injunction Application in its entirety, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 15.4 of the New Court Law. Additionally, the court dismissed the First Respondent’s Postponement Application. Regarding costs, the court reserved its decision, ordering the parties to submit written arguments in a staggered sequence to determine the final liability for legal expenses.

As stated in the order:

In the circumstances, I do not consider that the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought and I dismiss the Injunction Applications. The parties agreed that I should not determine any question of costs until this judgement has been published to them and I therefore make an order that the parties make submissions on costs in writing as follows:

What are the wider implications of this judgment for practitioners seeking interim relief in the DIFC?

This judgment serves as a significant reminder that the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction to grant interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations is not limitless. Practitioners must establish a clear nexus to the DIFC, demonstrating that the requested measures are not only "precautionary" but also relate to the DIFC in a way that makes the court's intervention meaningful. The court has signaled that it will not act as a global supervisor for disputes that have no connection to the DIFC, particularly where the resulting arbitral award would be unenforceable within the DIFC.

For a deeper analysis of these jurisdictional boundaries, see Oleksei v Olorun [2026] DIFC ARB 005: The Jurisdictional Limits of Precautionary Measures in Foreign-Seated Arbitrations. Practitioners should also be aware of the sibling order regarding the exclusion of unregistered foreign legal fees in this case: OLEKSEI v OLORUN [2026] DIFC ARB 005 — Summary assessment of costs and the exclusion of unregistered foreign legal fees.

Where can I read the full judgment in Oleksei v Olorun [2026] DIFC ARB 005?

The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0052026-1-oleksei-2-olesja-3-oliff-4-olexi-5-olinijia-6-olimipiana-7-olley-v-1-olorun-2-olov-3-olumiji-4-oluluaboe-5-olusheg-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-005-2026_20260128.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (New Court Law), Article 15.4
• DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008, Article 24.3
• Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021, Article 84
• DIFC Rules of Court (RDC), Part 25