DIFC Courts meaning

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

Oran and Oaken v Oved CA 004/2025 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision signals that the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts will be slow to issue anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings unless such relief is anchored in a recognised head of DIFC jurisdiction. It also makes plain that Article 32 of the DIFC Court Law No. 12 of 2004 (the Judicial Authority Law) may supply a power, but does not, by itself, bestow jurisdiction on the court. The judgment further confirms that a reference to Dubai in an arbitration clause does not automatically denote the DIFC, and that identifying the seat is a fact-specific, context-driven inquiry. Lastly, it offers guidance on the correct reading of a consumer contract for the purposes of Section 12 of the 2008 DIFC Arbitration Law, as amended... What was the background? The dispute stems from air-ambulance services supplied by Oved, a company incorporated in the UK, to the late Mr Oran and Mr Oaken (together, the...

In this issue: International Arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information International Arbitration Hong Kong—court orders stay of court proceedings in dispute involving non-signatory to arbitration agreement The Hong Kong Court of First Instance, in Techteryx Ltd v Legacy Trust Company Ltd, ordered a stay of Hong Kong proceedings in favour of arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Her Ladyship, Madam Justice Mimmie Chan, found that the criteria for a stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) were fulfilled. On a prima facie assessment, there was a sufficient basis for the non-signatory defendant to invoke the arbitration agreements, relying on the doctrines of agency and equitable estoppel under Delaware law, which governed those agreements. For detailed commentary, refer to News Analysis: Hong Kong—court orders stay of court proceedings in dispute involving non-signatory to arbitration agreement (Techteryx Ltd v Legacy...

Interim remedies and arbitration in the UAE Interim remedies in the UAE are, as a rule, harder to secure than in jurisdictions such as England and Wales or the United States. Local UAE courts typically do not recognise injunctions or similar forms of interim relief, save for limited exceptions. In contrast, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts apply common law principles, so are more inclined to grant interim measures and have authority to make a wider range of orders. The tests the DIFC courts use when deciding whether to award an injunction will be familiar to lawyers from common law backgrounds. While this may reassure contracting parties choosing a DIFC courts jurisdiction clause, an interim order issued by the DIFC will be immediately effective only against assets, persons, or property located within the DIFC special economic zone. A claimant may then face difficulties enforcing that order against onshore assets through the UAE courts, particularly where the form of relief is not recognised by the UAE courts. On 3...

Loan market and developments At the start, it is important to recognise that engaging with a specific Emirate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) requires consideration of both Federal laws and the rules of the relevant Emirate. Moreover, the UAE contains multiple free zones, each of which may apply its own legal regime; the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) are the most notable. Consequently, before entering into any arrangements linked to a particular free zone, tailored advice should be sought. Robust domestic economic conditions have underpinned the UAE banking sector’s expansion over the past couple of years. Fuelled by strong credit appetite from consumers, corporates and financial institutions, lending continues to rise, with increases across both retail and corporate lending. This trajectory is expected to endure despite regional geopolitical headwinds and oil price swings. Many regional banks are contending with the issue of non-performing...

Introduction This practice note reviews the ‘Without Prejudice’ (WP) principle under the onshore civil law of the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’), its policy foundations, and its application in Dubai‑seated arbitration, in light of the recent Dubai Court of Cassation Case (DCC Case) No. 486/2024. The WP doctrine traces its lineage to English common law. Among the leading authorities on WP in correspondence, the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335 affirmed a stringent approach to WP in the nineteenth century. Concerned that the very aim of the limitation might be defeated, the Appeal Court agreed it would be ill‑advised for courts to admit as evidence the conduct of litigants contained in letters written without prejudice. At that time, there was no exception regarding costs. The formulation ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ arose much later, in the 1975 English appeal of Calderbank v Calderbank. The contemporary statement of WP is derived from an equally frequently cited authority a century later—Cutts v Head [1984]...