The DIFC Court of First Instance issued a robust anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendants from pursuing parallel litigation in the Abu Dhabi Courts, reinforcing the primacy of the DIFC-seated arbitration agreement.
What specific relief did Oswin seek against Otila and Ondray regarding the Abu Dhabi Court Case No. X?
The dispute centers on a breach of an arbitration agreement contained within a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019. The Claimant, Oswin, initiated arbitration under the DIAC Rules, asserting that the Defendants, Otila and Ondray, acted in direct violation of the agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanism by filing and maintaining parallel proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Courts (Case No. X). Oswin sought an urgent anti-suit injunction (ASI) to halt these onshore proceedings, arguing that the DIFC Court, as the supervisory court of the seat, must protect the integrity of the arbitration process.
The stakes involved not only the procedural integrity of the ongoing DIAC arbitration but also the financial burden of defending against unauthorized litigation. The court’s intervention was deemed necessary to prevent the Defendants from undermining the JVA’s mandatory arbitration clause. As noted in the court's order regarding the costs of this application:
The Defendants must pay the Claimant’s cost of and occasioned by the ASI Application, such costs to be the subject of detailed assessment, but with the Defendants making an interim payment forthwith of AED 195,165 to the Claimant.
Further details on the broader context of this jurisdictional battle can be found in the analysis of the related proceedings at Oswin v Otila [2025] DIFC ARB 032: The High Cost of Defying the DIFC Supervisory Shield.
Which judge presided over the 20 October 2025 hearing in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court?
The matter was heard before H.E. Justice Michael Black KC in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place on 20 October 2025, following a series of prior interim orders issued by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in August and September 2025. The final order resulting from this hearing was issued on 21 October 2025.
What arguments did the Claimant and Defendants advance regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement in Oswin v Otila?
The Claimant, represented by Dr Mahmood Hussain Advocates and Legal Consultancy Ltd, argued that the JVA contained a clear and binding arbitration agreement at Clause 21.3, which mandated DIFC-seated arbitration. They contended that the Defendants' initiation of proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Courts was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent this agreement. The Claimant relied on the Second Witness Statement of Mr. Osgood to demonstrate the irreparable harm caused by the parallel litigation.
Conversely, the Defendants contested the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court and the applicability of the arbitration agreement. In their Acknowledgement of Service dated 3 September 2025, the Defendants explicitly recorded their intention to contest the law governing the dispute. They sought to justify the Abu Dhabi proceedings, though the court ultimately found these arguments insufficient to override the contractual commitment to arbitration.
What was the jurisdictional question H.E. Justice Michael Black KC had to resolve regarding the DIFC Court's power to issue an anti-suit injunction?
The court was tasked with determining whether it possessed the requisite authority to restrain parties from continuing proceedings in an onshore court (Abu Dhabi) when those proceedings were initiated in breach of a DIFC-seated arbitration agreement. The doctrinal issue focused on the extent of the DIFC Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under the DIFC Arbitration Law and whether an anti-suit injunction was the appropriate remedy to uphold the "negative obligation" inherent in the arbitration agreement—namely, the promise not to litigate elsewhere.
How did H.E. Justice Michael Black KC justify the issuance of the anti-suit injunction in support of the DIAC arbitration?
The court’s reasoning was grounded in the principle that the DIFC Court, as the seat of the arbitration, has a duty to protect the parties' bargain. By confirming that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding, the judge exercised the court's inherent power to ensure that the arbitration process was not frustrated by parallel onshore litigation. The court emphasized that the arbitration agreement was clearly defined:
The arbitration agreement is at Clause 21.3 of the Joint Venture Agreement, providing for DIFC‑seated arbitration (administered by DIAC pursuant to Dubai Decree No. 34/2021).
The judge concluded that the Defendants' conduct in the Abu Dhabi Courts constituted a breach of this agreement, necessitating an immediate injunction to preserve the status quo and the efficacy of the DIAC proceedings.
Which specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were applied by the court to grant the injunction?
The court exercised its authority under Article 24(3) of the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008, which empowers the court to grant interim measures in support of arbitration. Procedurally, the application was governed by RDC Part 25, which provides the framework for interim remedies, and specifically RDC 43.48 and RDC 43.50, which detail the court's powers to grant injunctions in the context of arbitration proceedings.
How did the court address the potential for contempt regarding the anti-suit injunction?
The court underscored the gravity of the order by including a penal notice, warning that any disobedience could lead to severe consequences, including referral to the Attorney General of Dubai or asset seizure. The court explicitly defined the scope of the injunction’s effect:
Effect of this Order:
It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this Order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this Order.
This language serves as a deterrent against both the named Defendants and any third parties who might facilitate the continuation of the Abu Dhabi proceedings.
What was the final disposition and the financial order made against the Defendants?
The court granted the Claimant’s application for an anti-suit injunction. The Defendants were ordered to cease all steps in the Abu Dhabi Court Case No. X and to discontinue those proceedings immediately. Regarding costs, the court ordered the Defendants to pay the Claimant’s costs of the ASI application, with an immediate interim payment of AED 195,165. The court also required the Claimant to provide specific undertakings, including:
(1) If the Court later finds that this Order or carrying it out has caused loss to the Defendants, and decides that the Defendants should be compensated for that loss, the Claimant will comply with any order the Court may make.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners dealing with parallel onshore proceedings?
This case confirms that the DIFC Court will act decisively to protect its supervisory role over DIFC-seated arbitrations. Practitioners must anticipate that the court will not hesitate to issue anti-suit injunctions against parties who attempt to bypass arbitration agreements by filing parallel claims in onshore courts. The ruling serves as a reminder that the "negative obligation" of an arbitration agreement is enforceable and that breaches of this obligation will be met with significant cost orders and the threat of contempt proceedings. For further reading on the tactical implications of this case, see the detailed analysis: Oswin v Otila [2025] DIFC ARB 032: The High Cost of Defying the DIFC Supervisory Shield.
Where can I read the full judgment in Oswin v Otila [2025] DIFC ARB 032?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0322025-oswin-v-1-otila-2-ondray-4 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/arb-0322025-oswin-v-1-otila-2-ondray-4.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008, Article 24(3)
- RDC Part 25
- RDC 43.48
- RDC 43.50
- Dubai Decree No. 34/2021