Oran (2) Oaken v Oved [2025] DIFC CA 004 (28 October 2025)

Oran (2) Oaken v Oved [2025] DIFC CA 004 (28 October 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction to grant the anti-suit injunction because the arbitration was not seated in the DIFC and no other head of jurisdiction applied. The Court further found that the underlying contract was a consumer contract, making the arbitration agreement unenforceable against the Appellants under Article 12(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law. The English High Court was the appropriate forum to determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

Citation
[2025] DIFC CA 004
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Estate of the Late Mr Oran; Defendant/appellant: Mr Oaken; Claimant/respondent: Oved
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
28 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Final Orders
Outcome
Appeals allowed; anti-suit injunction discharged; objection to jurisdiction upheld.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Consumer Contracts, Forum Non Conveniens
Arbitration Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements Consumer Contracts Forum Non Conveniens

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estate of the Late Mr Oran

Defendant/appellant

Mr Oaken

Defendant/appellant

Oved

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction (ASI) in support of an arbitration not seated in the DIFC
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement was incorporated and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the underlying contract was a consumer contract under DIFC Arbitration Law Article 12(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction to grant the anti-suit injunction because the arbitration was not seated in the DIFC and no other head of jurisdiction applied. The Court further found that the underlying contract was a consumer contract, making the arbitration agreement unenforceable against the Appellants under Article 12(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law. The English High Court was the appropriate forum to determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; anti-suit injunction discharged; objection to jurisdiction upheld.

Orders

  • The anti-suit injunction is discharged.
  • The DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction over the dispute.