Onorata (2) Opall (3) Opalina v Onslowe [2026] DIFC ARB 026 (07 January 2026)

Onorata (2) Opall (3) Opalina v Onslowe [2026] DIFC ARB 026 (07 January 2026)

The applicants failed to establish that the tribunal exceeded its mandate or that the award conflicted with UAE public policy; the disputes determined fell within the broad arbitration clause, and the remedies did not affect non-parties or offend fundamental legal principles.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] DIFC ARB 026
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Onorata; Claimant/applicant: Opall; Claimant/applicant: Opalina; Defendant/respondent: Onslowe
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
07 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Set Aside Application / First Instance Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Set Aside of Arbitral Award, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Public Policy in Arbitration, Shareholder Disputes
Arbitration Company Law Set Aside of Arbitral Award Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Public Policy in Arbitration Shareholder Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Onorata

Claimant/applicant

Opall

Claimant/applicant

Opalina

Claimant/applicant

Onslowe

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Set Aside Application / First Instance Judgment on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral award conflicted with UAE public policy

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that the tribunal exceeded its mandate or that the award conflicted with UAE public policy; the disputes determined fell within the broad arbitration clause, and the remedies did not affect non-parties or offend fundamental legal principles.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Set aside application dismissed
  • Claimants to pay Defendant's costs of the application