Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
United Arab Emirates decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed a jurisdiction challenge, holding that a policy clause referring to “United Arab Emirates” jurisdiction included the DIFC Courts.
Peace v Posie [2025] DIFC SCT 457
Permission to appeal was refused in a DIFC SCT dispute over apartment water leakage, with the court relying on the available evidence after the defendant obstructed expert inspection.
The Digital Economy Court adjourned the contempt hearing, granted the remedy application, and clarified how specified funds could be used for legal fees and expenses.
Alrakban v Webridge Properties LLC [2026] ADGMCFI 0014 (19 May 2026)
The defendant, by its conduct and documentation, represented to the claimant that VAT was included in the purchase price. The SPA did not require separate VAT payment, and the defendant's subsequent insistence on VAT constituted a misrepresentation that induced the claimant to contract. The defendant's counterclaim fails as it repudiated the contract by refusing the claimant's tendered payment and seeking deregistration. Only the VAT misrepresentation is actionable; other alleged misrepresentations are not established.
Source excerpt
KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd & Anor v Novo Nordisk A/S [2026] SGCA(I) 2 (14 May 2026)
The appeal was dismissed because the Judge was entitled to find a good arguable case of fraud and deliberate non-disclosure by KBP and Dr Huang, a real risk of dissipation based on the movement of sale proceeds, and no material failure by Novo to make full and frank disclosure. The requirements of section 12A of the IAA for urgent court-ordered interim relief were satisfied as the arbitral tribunal could not act effectively at the relevant time.
Source excerpt
Salehiya Trading Company v Olympus Europa SE & Co. KG [2026] DIFC CFI 031 (06 May 2026)
The Court exercised its discretion to allow only 60% of the costs claimed, finding this proportion fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the standard basis for assessment.
Source excerpt
Zuzana Kapova v (1) Miloslav Makovini (2) Pharm Trade Holding Ltd and Mr. Sebastian Kapa [2026] DIFC CFI 004 (29 April 2026)
The Claimant's failure to pay the first instalment constituted a material breach under the Settlement Agreement, entitling the First Defendant to immediate judgment for the accelerated settlement sum. There were no triable issues of fact or law regarding misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or duress, and the agreement expressly excluded such defences absent fraud. The stay of proceedings was properly lifted to permit enforcement, and summary judgment was appropriate.
Source excerpt
The Collection Club Restaurant Limited (2) Laurent Buisine (3) Hugo Valat v Mag Development Services Limited [2026] DIFC CA 006 (24 April 2026)
The obligation to pay rent under the lease is a mere obligation to pay, excluded from force majeure relief by Article 82 of DIFC Contract Law; summary dismissal of the defence was appropriate as no triable issue existed.
Source excerpt
Ovya v Oshie [2026] DIFC ARB 023 (24 April 2026)
Non-disclosure of Orabelle v Orzenia was inadvertent and immaterial because Trafigura is binding; no further action is warranted.
Source excerpt
Sowwah Square Investment - Sole Proprietorship LLC v Forever Rose Retail Ltd [2026] ADGMCFI 0013 (22 April 2026)
Summary judgment is granted for tenant payments and yield up costs because the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending these claims and there is no compelling reason for a trial. Summary judgment is refused for liquidated damages and late payment fee because there is a real prospect of a successful defence that these are unenforceable penalties under the proportionality test.
Source excerpt
Explore more
