Clyde & Co LLP v Jalan [2026] EWHC 403 (Comm) (26 February 2026)

The court found that Clyde & Co LLP had not established to a high degree of probability that there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement covering the dispute, due to inconsistencies and conflicts between the Terms letter, Annex, and MOHRE contracts, and the overriding effect of UAE Labour Law. Accordingly,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2026] EWHC 403 (Comm)
Parties: Claimant: Clyde & Co LLP; Defendant: Mr Abhimanyu Jalan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 26 February 2026
Procedural Posture: Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Judgment on Application
Outcome: Application refused
Legal Topics: Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts, Jurisdictional Conflicts, Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses, Public Policy in Employment Disputes

Arbitration Employment Law Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts Jurisdictional Conflicts Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses Public Policy in Employment Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Clyde & Co LLP

Claimant

Mr Abhimanyu Jalan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Anti Suit Injunction / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether there is a valid and enforceable English arbitration agreement covering the dispute
2 Whether the dispute is arbitrable under English law
3 Whether it is just and convenient to grant an anti-suit injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

No anti-suit injunction granted
Parties to proceed as per Dubai Labour Court process

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.