Fleming v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC, [2021] ADGMCFI 0006 (24 May 2021)

Fleming v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC, [2021] ADGMCFI 0006 (24 May 2021)

The Court does not have jurisdiction under section 95(7) of the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 to grant the substantive orders sought by the Joint Administrators, as they are not directions but declarations affecting third parties' rights. Proceedings are stayed in so far as they concern matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement or exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Amendment application refused. Costs reserved.

Citation
[2021] ADGMCFI 0006
Parties
Applicant/claimant (joint Administrator): Richard Fleming; Applicant/claimant (joint Administrator): Benjamin Cairns; Claimant: NMC Healthcare Ltd (in administration); Respondent/defendant: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC; Respondents/defendants: Insurance Companies and Third Party Administrators listed in Schedule 2
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Civil (insolvency) / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Directions Applications
Outcome
Directions Application refused; Claim Form Proceedings stayed in part; Amendment Application refused; Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Administrator Directions, Security Interests, Arbitration Agreements, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Assignment of Receivables, Moratorium, Priority of Claims
Insolvency Arbitration Commercial Law Banking Law Jurisdiction Administrator Directions Security Interests Arbitration Agreements +4 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 4 Authorities cited 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Fleming

Applicant/claimant (joint Administrator)

Benjamin Cairns

Applicant/claimant (joint Administrator)

NMC Healthcare Ltd (in administration)

Claimant

Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC

Respondent/defendant

Insurance Companies and Third Party Administrators listed in Schedule 2

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial and Civil (insolvency) / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Directions Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Court have jurisdiction under section 95(7) of the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 to grant the directions sought?
  2. 2 Are the orders sought by the Joint Administrators properly characterised as directions?
  3. 3 Should proceedings be stayed in favour of arbitration or another UAE court under relevant agreements?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court does not have jurisdiction under section 95(7) of the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 to grant the substantive orders sought by the Joint Administrators, as they are not directions but declarations affecting third parties' rights. Proceedings are stayed in so far as they concern matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement or exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Amendment application refused. Costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Directions Application refused; Claim Form Proceedings stayed in part; Amendment Application refused; Costs reserved.

Orders

  • Directions Application refused.
  • Claim Form Proceedings stayed as between Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC and Original Guarantors in the Master Murabaha Agreement dated 26 April 2018 for matters within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement, or as between Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC and NMC Healthcare Ltd for matters within the scope of the jurisdiction...