How did the Second Defendant and individual respondents attempt to circumvent the DIFC Court’s supervisory jurisdiction in Oswin v Otila?
The dispute arises from a complex arbitration involving the operation of a medical and hazardous waste facility. The Claimant, Oswin, sought to protect its position as the operator of the facility against the First Defendant, Otila, and the Second Defendant, Ondray. The conflict escalated when the Defendants initiated parallel proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance (ADCFI) to undermine the DIFC-seated arbitration and the authority of the DIFC Court.
The Court found that the respondents engaged in a pattern of deliberate defiance. As noted in the judgment:
The Second Defendant, Mr Ozlynn and/or Mr Ozlem breached the Injunction issued by this Court on 29 August 2025 (the “injunction”) when, on 13 September 2025, the Defendants commenced proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance (“ADCFI”) which proceedings sought, inter-alia, to (a) remove the Claimant as operator of the Plant and (b) appoint the Second Defendant as the party in charge of the management of the First Defendant until takeover of the Plant.
The respondents further exacerbated their position by filing additional challenges to the validity of the DIAC arbitration. As the Court observed:
Furthermore, it now appears that further proceedings have been filed by the Second Defendant on 10 December 2025 in relation to the DIAC arbitration which was commenced by the Claimant, challenging its validity and also seeking an order suspending all enforcement proceedings in support of the arbitration which would appear to include the orders made by this Court.
For further context on the initial stages of this conflict, see the deep editorial analysis at: Oswin v Otila [2025] DIFC ARB 032: The High Cost of Defying the DIFC Supervisory Shield.
Which judge presided over the committal application in ARB 032/2025?
The committal application was heard by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place on 27 January 2026, with the final Order with Reasons issued on 9 February 2026. This order followed a series of interlocutory applications, including a failed recusal application filed by the Second Defendant.
What arguments did the Claimant and the Second Defendant advance regarding the committal application?
The Claimant, represented by Dr Mahmood Hussain Advocates & Legal Consultancy Ltd, argued that the respondents’ conduct constituted a flagrant and persistent breach of the Court’s previous orders, specifically the Injunction dated 29 August 2025 and the Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) Order issued by H.E. Justice Michael Black KC on 21 October 2025. The Claimant submitted that the respondents’ continued attempts to litigate in the ADCFI were a direct challenge to the DIFC Court’s authority as the supervisory court of the arbitration.
Conversely, the Second Defendant, represented by Mr Ismail, sought to resist the committal application through a series of procedural challenges. These included an application to adjourn the hearing, an application for the recusal of H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, and an application for legal representation. The respondents maintained that their actions were legitimate attempts to protect their interests in the medical waste facility, despite the clear prohibitions set out in the DIFC Court's prior orders.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the procedural requirements for committal?
The Court had to determine whether it possessed the authority to waive procedural irregularities in a committal application where the respondents had clearly breached the Court’s orders but the Claimant had initially failed to comply with the strict evidentiary requirements of RDC 52.12. The issue was whether the failure to file an affidavit in the correct form, as opposed to a witness statement, rendered the committal application invalid or whether the Court could exercise its discretion to cure the defect in the interest of justice.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test for waiving procedural defects in committal proceedings?
Justice Cooke exercised the Court’s discretion to ensure that the administration of justice was not frustrated by technicalities. The Court acknowledged the Claimant's initial error but determined that it did not cause injustice to the respondents, who were well aware of the allegations against them.
The Court waives the procedural defect of failure on the part of the Claimant to file the affidavit of Mr Osgood dated 26 January 2026 (in substantially the same terms as his third witness statement) until 2 February under RDC 52.26.
The Court emphasized that the respondents' conduct was a serious affront to the authority of the DIFC Courts. The reasoning focused on the necessity of upholding the integrity of the supervisory process, noting that the respondents had deliberately sought to circumvent the Injunction by initiating fresh proceedings in the ADCFI on 19 November 2025.
Which RDC rules and statutes were central to the Court’s decision in the committal application?
The Court relied heavily on RDC Part 52, which governs committal for contempt of court. Specifically, the Court invoked RDC 52.37(1) to refer the contemnors to the Attorney General of Dubai. The Court also utilized RDC 52.26 to waive the procedural defect regarding the filing of the affidavit by Mr Osgood. The application itself was brought under RDC Part 52, as noted in the record:
By an Application Notice dated 31 December 2025, the Claimant applied for the committal of the First Defendant, Ozlynn (“Mr Ozlynn”) and Ozlem (“Mr Ozlem”) for contempt of court under RDC Part 52 on six grounds set out in the Committal Application.
How did the Court utilize precedent in determining the seriousness of the contempt?
The Court relied on Lateef v Liyela [2020] DIFC ARB 017 to underscore the gravity of the respondents' actions. In Lateef, the Court established that breaches of court orders are inherently serious because they undermine the administration of justice, necessitating strong measures, including the potential for imprisonment. Justice Cooke applied this principle to the current case, finding that the respondents’ persistent defiance of the Injunction and the ASI Order warranted a severe response to maintain the efficacy of the DIFC’s supervisory role.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted by the Court?
The Court granted the Committal Application, finding Mr Ozlynn, Mr Ozlem, and the Second Defendant (Ondray) in contempt of court. The Court ordered each party to pay a fine of USD 75,000 within 28 days. Furthermore, the Court referred all three parties to the Attorney General of Dubai for further review and potential committal. The Court also awarded the Claimant its costs on an indemnity basis.
Mr Ozlynn, Mr Ozlem, and the Second Defendant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by the Committal Application on an indemnity basis, to be the subject of summary assessment on the indemnity basis following submissions by the Parties as hereafter set out.
The Court further clarified the basis for the costs order:
I also ordered the Defendants and the Individual Respondents to be jointly and severally liable for the Claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis because of their contempt of Court which brought about the Committal Application, as I can see no basis upon which that order would not follow from the decisions made in this Order and Judgment.
What are the wider implications for practitioners regarding the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions in the DIFC?
This judgment serves as a stern warning to litigants who attempt to circumvent the DIFC Court’s supervisory jurisdiction by initiating parallel proceedings in onshore courts. The Court’s willingness to impose significant financial penalties and refer parties to the Attorney General demonstrates that the DIFC Court will not tolerate the undermining of its orders. Practitioners must anticipate that any attempt to ignore an anti-suit injunction will be met with immediate and severe consequences, including personal liability for contempt.
For further reading on the sequence of this case, see the following sibling orders:
- OSWIN v OTILA [2025] DIFC ARB 032 — Defending the Seat Against Parallel Onshore Proceedings (16 September 2025)
- OSWIN v OTILA [2025] DIFC ARB 032 — Anti-suit injunction against parallel Abu Dhabi proceedings (21 October 2025)
- OSWIN v OTILA [2025] DIFC ARB 032 — Summary assessment of indemnity costs following a failed PTA application
- OSWIN v OTILA [2026] DIFC ARB 032 — The High Cost of Defying the DIFC Supervisory Shield (23 January 2026)
Where can I read the full judgment in Oswin v Otila [2026] DIFC ARB 032?
The full judgment 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-5 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-032-2025_20260209.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Lateef v Liyela | [2020] DIFC ARB 017 | Cited as authority for the seriousness of breaching court orders and the resulting need for committal. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 52 (Committal for Contempt)
- RDC 52.9(1)
- RDC 52.12
- RDC 52.26
- RDC 52.37(1)