Ohene (2) Ocarina (3) Omeri v (1) Ornet (2) Orrick [2026] DIFC CFI 111 (23 March 2026)

Ohene (2) Ocarina (3) Omeri v (1) Ornet (2) Orrick [2026] DIFC CFI 111 (23 March 2026)

The claimants established a good arguable case for a proprietary claim over Orrick shares sufficient to justify continuation of the stop order, as damages may be inadequate if Ornet is insolvent and the balance of convenience favours restraint on sale. However, the evidence did not establish a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify a worldwide freezing order. Alleged non-disclosures by claimants were not sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside the stop order.

Citation
[2026] DIFC CFI 111
Parties
Claimant: Ohene; Claimant: Ocarina; Claimant: Omeri; Defendant: Ornet; Defendant: Orrick; Notice Party: Orsalina
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
23 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (interim Relief in Support of Arbitration) / Interlocutory Order With Reasons on Applications for Freezing Order, Proprietary Injunction, and to Set Aside Stop Order
Outcome
DIFC Injunction Application (freezing order) dismissed; Set Aside Application dismissed; Stop Order continued pending arbitral determination and further order.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief in Support of Arbitration, Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Stop Orders, Beneficial Entitlement to Securities, Restitution, Unjust Enrichment, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Disclosure Obligations Ex Parte, Jurisdiction of DIFC Courts Under Arbitration Law
Arbitration Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Company Law Interim Relief in Support of Arbitration Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Stop Orders +7 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ohene

Claimant

Ocarina

Claimant

Omeri

Claimant

Ornet

Defendant

Orrick

Defendant

Orsalina

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (interim Relief in Support of Arbitration) / Interlocutory Order With Reasons on Applications for Freezing Order, Proprietary Injunction, and to Set Aside Stop Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to a worldwide freezing order against Ornet
  2. 2 Whether the stop order over shares in Orrick should be set aside or continued
  3. 3 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for a proprietary interest in Orrick shares

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants established a good arguable case for a proprietary claim over Orrick shares sufficient to justify continuation of the stop order, as damages may be inadequate if Ornet is insolvent and the balance of convenience favours restraint on sale. However, the evidence did not establish a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify a worldwide freezing order. Alleged non-disclosures by claimants were not sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside the stop order.

Court Disposition

DIFC Injunction Application (freezing order) dismissed; Set Aside Application dismissed; Stop Order continued pending arbitral determination and further order.

Orders

  • DIFC Injunction Application dismissed
  • Set Aside Application dismissed