Limsa (Pty) Ltd V (1) Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (2) Lendi (3) Lander (4) Leone [2020] DIFC ARB 008 (19 May 2020)

Limsa (Pty) Ltd V (1) Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (2) Lendi (3) Lander (4) Leone [2020] DIFC ARB 008 (19 May 2020)

The proceedings were always doomed to fail for want of jurisdiction, as the decision of 12 December 2019 was not an arbitral award and the DIFC Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside; Limsa failed to comply with pre-action protocols, and there was no unreasonable conduct by the defendants to justify departure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] DIFC ARB 008
Parties
Claimant: Limsa (Pty) Ltd; First Defendant: Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commodities Centre; Second Defendant: Lendi; Third Defendant: Lander; Fourth Defendant: Leone
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Costs Order Following Discontinuance
Outcome
Claimant to pay defendants' costs; proceedings dismissed on discontinuance.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Costs, Discontinuance, Recognition and Enforcement of Awards, Pre Action Protocols
Arbitration Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Costs Discontinuance Recognition and Enforcement of Awards Pre Action Protocols

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Limsa (Pty) Ltd

Claimant

Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commodities Centre

First Defendant

Lendi

Second Defendant

Lander

Third Defendant

Leone

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Costs Order Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DIFC Court had jurisdiction to set aside the decision of 12 December 2019 as an arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were properly characterised as relating to an arbitral award or a disciplinary decision
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be liable for the defendants' costs upon discontinuance

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were always doomed to fail for want of jurisdiction, as the decision of 12 December 2019 was not an arbitral award and the DIFC Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside; Limsa failed to comply with pre-action protocols, and there was no unreasonable conduct by the defendants to justify departure from the default costs rule. Accordingly, Limsa must pay the defendants’ costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant to pay defendants' costs; proceedings dismissed on discontinuance.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Second to Fourth Defendants’ costs in the sum of AED 168,180.00 within 14 days.
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant’s costs of the proceedings and hearing on 4 May 2020, being USD 86,275.30 into Court within 14 days (representing 50% of First Defendant’s claimed costs).