Loralia Group LLC v Landen Saudi Company [2018] DIFC ARB 004 (23 April 2020)

Loralia Group LLC v Landen Saudi Company [2018] DIFC ARB 004 (23 April 2020)

There is no public policy in the DIFC specifically prohibiting contingency fees; the arbitral tribunal assessed the reasonableness of the fee arrangement and found no procedural unfairness. The award does not violate UAE public policy as applied within the DIFC. The applicant's set aside application fails and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] DIFC ARB 004
Parties
Applicant: Lorelei Group LLC; Respondent: Landen Saudi Company
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
23 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Cross Application for Recognition/enforcement / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's set aside application dismissed; Respondent's cross-application for recognition and enforcement granted; Respondent's applications for immediate judgment and security dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contingency Fees, Public Policy, Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Commercial Law Contingency Fees Public Policy Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Costs in Arbitration

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

Parties

Lorelei Group LLC

Applicant

Landen Saudi Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Cross Application for Recognition/enforcement / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for conflict with UAE public policy against contingency fees
  2. 2 Whether the award can be recognised and enforced in the DIFC Courts
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of DIFC Courts to hear set aside application

Ratio Decidendi

There is no public policy in the DIFC specifically prohibiting contingency fees; the arbitral tribunal assessed the reasonableness of the fee arrangement and found no procedural unfairness. The award does not violate UAE public policy as applied within the DIFC. The applicant's set aside application fails and the award is recognised and enforced.

Court Disposition

Applicant's set aside application dismissed; Respondent's cross-application for recognition and enforcement granted; Respondent's applications for immediate judgment and security dismissed.

Orders

  • Award enforced as judgment of DIFC Courts
  • Applicant to pay Respondent USD 7,356,016.22 damages