What was the nature of the dispute between Orabelle and Orzenia and what was the total value of the relief sought?
The dispute between Orabelle and Orzenia centered on an alleged breach of an Asset Management Agreement (AMA) dated 7 December 2015, which the Applicant claimed was subsequently modified by an Amendment Agreement in September 2022. Orabelle, an investment solution provider operating in the hospitality and property sector, alleged that Orzenia, an entity registered in Osprey, unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship in November 2025. This termination purportedly involved blocking Orabelle’s access to systems, premises, and banking permissions, including a specific UAE-based "Dubai Account."
Orabelle sought to protect its position pending the commencement of arbitration proceedings in Paris. The financial stakes were significant, with the Applicant seeking a worldwide freezing order to secure the alleged termination indemnity and outstanding management fees. As noted in the judgment:
These are the reasons for the Order dated 21 January 2026 dismissing the Applicant’s urgent ex-parte application seeking: (i) a worldwide freezing order up to USD 8,071,581.39 (or equivalent); and (ii) an asset disclosure order, together with related procedural relief including alternative service.
[Source: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0072026-orabelle-v-orzenia]
Which judge presided over the Orabelle v Orzenia [2026] DIFC ARB 007 application and in which division was it heard?
The application was heard by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi sitting in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The initial order was issued on 21 January 2026, with the formal written reasons for the dismissal of the application handed down on 30 January 2026.
What legal arguments did Orabelle advance to justify the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction over a foreign-seated arbitration?
Orabelle, represented in its ex-parte application, argued that the DIFC Court possessed the necessary jurisdictional reach to grant interim relief, including a worldwide freezing order, despite the arbitration being seated in Paris. The Applicant relied on a combination of statutory provisions and the Court’s inherent remedial powers. As summarized in the judgment:
The Applicant relied principally on: (i) asserted jurisdiction under Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 concerning the DIFC; (ii) the interim remedies provisions in RDC Part 25; and (iii) authorities addressing interim relief and the DIFC Courts’ supportive role in cross-border disputes.
Furthermore, the Applicant contended that the Court should adopt a liberal interpretation of its powers to support transnational commerce. They argued that the Court’s authority to restrain dealings in assets should not be geographically constrained, provided the Court had a supportive role in the underlying dispute.
What was the anterior jurisdictional question the Court had to resolve regarding Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025?
The primary legal question was whether the DIFC Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 to grant a worldwide freezing order when the Applicant failed to identify any assets belonging to the Respondent within the DIFC. The Court had to determine if the statutory language "within the DIFC" functioned as a jurisdictional gateway that required a substantive nexus, or if it merely described the location of the relief itself. The Court focused on whether the "anterior" requirement of jurisdiction was satisfied before it could even consider the merits of the RDC Part 25 application.
How did Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the test for interim relief in the absence of a DIFC nexus?
Justice Al Sawalehi emphasized that the Court’s remedial powers under the RDC are secondary to the fundamental requirement of establishing jurisdiction. He rejected the Applicant’s attempt to use the Court’s broad powers to bypass the lack of a territorial connection. The reasoning is captured in the following passage:
I accept that the Applicant’s submissions attempted to bridge this gap by relying on RDC Part 25 provisions permitting freezing orders to extend worldwide and on statements in authorities recognising wide remedial powers. However, wide remedial powers do not themselves answer the anterior question: whether the jurisdictional trigger under the statute relied upon is met on the facts.
The Court held that because the Applicant could not identify any assets within the DIFC, the statutory condition of "within the DIFC" was not met. Consequently, the Court found it lacked the jurisdictional foundation to grant the requested freezing order, as the practical effect would be to regulate assets entirely outside the DIFC with no connection to the jurisdiction.
Which specific statutes and rules were applied by the Court in Orabelle v Orzenia?
The Court’s analysis was governed by the following legislative framework:
* Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 15(4): This was the primary statutory provision invoked by the Applicant to establish jurisdiction for interim measures in support of foreign arbitral proceedings.
* Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 25: Specifically RDC 25.11-15, which govern the requirements for freezing orders, including the necessity of a good arguable case, the existence of assets, and the risk of dissipation.
How did the Court distinguish the precedents cited by the Applicant regarding interim measures in aid of foreign proceedings?
The Applicant relied on appellate authority—specifically referencing Trafigura—to argue that the DIFC Courts have a broad mandate to grant interim measures in aid of foreign proceedings. Justice Al Sawalehi acknowledged these authorities but distinguished them on the facts. He noted that while the DIFC Courts do indeed play a supportive role in cross-border disputes, that support is not limitless. The Court held that the Applicant’s reliance on these cases failed to account for the specific statutory gateway of Article 15(4), which requires a "suitable precautionary measure within the DIFC." Because the Applicant could not identify any assets within the DIFC, the Court determined that the cited precedents could not be used to manufacture jurisdiction where none existed.
What was the final disposition of the application and what orders were made regarding costs?
The Court dismissed the application in its entirety. Justice Al Sawalehi concluded that the Court lacked the jurisdictional foundation to grant the requested worldwide freezing order and asset disclosure order. The dismissal was based on the failure to satisfy the "within the DIFC" requirement of Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025. No monetary relief was awarded to the Applicant, and the Court’s order effectively denied all requested interim protections.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners seeking interim relief in the DIFC?
This judgment serves as a strict reminder that the DIFC Courts will not act as a global "policeman" for assets located entirely outside the jurisdiction. Practitioners must ensure that they can identify a substantive nexus—specifically assets located within the DIFC—before invoking Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025. The ruling clarifies that "wide remedial powers" under the RDC cannot be used to circumvent the lack of a jurisdictional trigger. Future litigants must anticipate that the Court will prioritize the "anterior" question of jurisdiction over the convenience of the applicant, and that failing to demonstrate a clear DIFC nexus will result in the summary dismissal of ex-parte applications for freezing orders.
Where can I read the full judgment in Orabelle v Orzenia [2026] DIFC ARB 007?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0072026-orabelle-v-orzenia
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Trafigura | N/A | Cited by Applicant to support broad interim relief powers; distinguished by the Court. |
Legislation referenced:
- Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 15(4)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 25 (RDC 25.11-15, 25.33-36)