ARB 009/2024 Narciso v Nash [2024] DIFC ARB 009 (20 June 2024)

ARB 009/2024 Narciso v Nash [2024] DIFC ARB 009 (20 June 2024)

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction because the parties expressly chose the DIFC as the seat of arbitration, which carries with it the supervisory jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. The arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable despite the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA, as Decree 34 expressly preserves such agreements and substitutes DIAC as the administering institution. There has been no abandonment, termination, or estoppel of the arbitration agreement by the claimant, as there was no clear and unequivocal conduct amounting to waiver, nor any notice of termination as required under DIFC law. The interim anti-suit injunction is therefore continued...

Citation
[2024] DIFC ARB 009
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Narciso; Defendant/respondent: Nash
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
20 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application (anti Suit Injunction) / Interim Application; Order With Reasons on Continuation of Injunction Pending Final Determination
Outcome
Defendant's application to discharge the interim anti-suit injunction is dismissed; interim anti-suit injunction continued until final determination or further order.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction of DIFC Courts, Validity of Arbitration Agreements, Effect of Decree 34 of 2021, Abandonment and Estoppel of Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction of DIFC Courts Validity of Arbitration Agreements Effect of Decree 34 of 2021 Abandonment and Estoppel of Arbitration Agreements

Case Brief

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narciso

Claimant/applicant

Nash

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application (anti Suit Injunction) / Interim Application; Order With Reasons on Continuation of Injunction Pending Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the DIFC Court have jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction in support of an arbitration agreement with DIFC as the seat?
  2. 2 Is the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable following the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA and enactment of Decree 34 of 2021?
  3. 3 Has the claimant abandoned, terminated, or is estopped from relying on the arbitration agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction because the parties expressly chose the DIFC as the seat of arbitration, which carries with it the supervisory jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. The arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable despite the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA, as Decree 34 expressly preserves such agreements and substitutes DIAC as the administering institution. There has been no abandonment, termination, or estoppel of the arbitration agreement by the claimant, as there was no clear and unequivocal conduct amounting to waiver, nor any notice of termination as required under DIFC law. The interim anti-suit injunction is therefore continued...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to discharge the interim anti-suit injunction is dismissed; interim anti-suit injunction continued until final determination or further order.

Orders

  • Defendant's application dismissed.
  • Paragraph 2 of the Interim Anti-Suit Order continued until final determination of the Part 8 Proceedings or further order.