EFG (Middle East) Ltd (2) EFG Bank Ltd v (1) Marj Holding Limited (2) Arj Holding Limited (3) Mohammad Ahmad Ramadhan Juma [2025] DIFC CFI 029 (27 August 2025)

EFG (Middle East) Ltd (2) EFG Bank Ltd v (1) Marj Holding Limited (2) Arj Holding Limited (3) Mohammad Ahmad Ramadhan Juma [2025] DIFC CFI 029 (27 August 2025)

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure by the claimants in the ex parte application. The court found that the claimants failed to draw attention to departures from the standard form order and did not adequately address issues of full and frank disclosure. Although the court would have likely granted an injunction if disclosure had been proper, the penal approach to non-disclosure required discharge. Jurisdiction was upheld as the challenge was out of time. Default judgment was refused due to outstanding legitimate questions. Mr. Juma was found in contempt for failing to provide asset information, but the penalty was limited to a fine given the order should...

Citation
[2025] DIFC CFI 029
Parties
Claimant/applicant: EFG (Middle East) Ltd; Claimant/applicant: EFG Bank Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Marj Holding Limited; Defendant/respondent: Arj Holding Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mohammad Ahmad Ramadhan Juma
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
27 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt and Injunction Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Applications to Discharge, Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Contempt, and Costs
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged for material non-disclosure; jurisdiction upheld; default judgment refused; respondent found in contempt and fined; costs awarded as per principles set out.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Contempt of Court, Costs
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Jurisdiction Default Judgment Contempt of Court +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EFG (Middle East) Ltd

Claimant/applicant

EFG Bank Ltd

Claimant/applicant

Marj Holding Limited

Defendant/respondent

Arj Holding Limited

Defendant/respondent

Mohammad Ahmad Ramadhan Juma

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt and Injunction Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Applications to Discharge, Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Contempt, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte worldwide freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the DIFC Court has jurisdiction over the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the freezing injunction should be reimposed

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure by the claimants in the ex parte application. The court found that the claimants failed to draw attention to departures from the standard form order and did not adequately address issues of full and frank disclosure. Although the court would have likely granted an injunction if disclosure had been proper, the penal approach to non-disclosure required discharge. Jurisdiction was upheld as the challenge was out of time. Default judgment was refused due to outstanding legitimate questions. Mr. Juma was found in contempt for failing to provide asset information, but the penalty was limited to a fine given the order should...

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged for material non-disclosure; jurisdiction upheld; default judgment refused; respondent found in contempt and fined; costs awarded as per principles set out.

Orders

  • Order dated 10 March 2025 discharged
  • No reimposition of freezing injunction