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
Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies Ltd [2026] DIFC CFI 067 (20 April 2026)
The Court exercised its discretion to award 80% of the Claimant's claimed costs, finding this proportion reasonable and proportionate in light of the nature of the permission to appeal application and the overall circumstances.
Source excerpt
A28 v B28 [2026] ADGMCFI 0012 (17 April 2026)
The Court held that, by agreeing to ICC arbitration under the ICC Rules, the parties accepted that the ICC Court could override the unilateral appointment right in exceptional circumstances under Article 12(9) of the ICC Rules. There was no breach of mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, and the ICC Court's decisions were final and not subject to review by the ADGM Court. The claim was dismissed and the ICC Court's appointment of the sole arbitrator was upheld.
Source excerpt
VTB Bank PJSC v (1) Timur Orazbekovich Kuanyshev (2) Evgeny Vyacheslavovich Shlenskikh (Aka Yevgeniy Shlyonskikh) (3) Shev Energy LLC-FZ (4) Alfiya Abulkhair Askar (Aka Alfiya Kuanysheva) (5) Munira Orhayevna Baymenova (Aka Munira Orhaevna Baimenova) [2026] DIFC CFI 121 (15 April 2026)
The Respondents were served with the WFO and WFO Continuation Order and failed to comply with asset disclosure and witness statement requirements. Their excuses are not credible or admissible. Contempt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court imposes fines and refers the matter to the Attorney General as sanctions available are inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the deliberate and continuing breach.
Source excerpt
Secure Capital Equipment LLC v NMC Healthcare Ltd [2026] ADGMCFI 0011 (15 April 2026)
Permission to continue the Dubai proceedings is refused because granting permission would not assist the purpose of the administration, would undermine the DOCA scheme and the undertakings given by Secure Capital, and there is no real proprietary dispute between Secure Capital and NMCH nor any realistic prospect of relief against NMCH in the Dubai proceedings. Secure Capital is bound by the DOCA and its undertakings, and has already received DOCA Creditor Entitlements. The moratorium should not be lifted in these circumstances.
Source excerpt
Five Holding Limited (DIFC) v Brij Dhirubhai Patel [2026] DIFC CFI 011 (15 April 2026)
Jurisdiction of DIFC Courts arises automatically under Article 14(1) of Law No. 2 of 2025 when a DIFC entity is a party; issues of cause of action, duty, liability, and prior proceedings are irrelevant to jurisdiction and are matters for trial. No error of law, fact, or mixed fact and law was identified with real prospect of success; PTA Application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Bimal Gandhi (2) Nishant Kaushik v (1) Muhanad Hisham Mohammed Azzeh (2) PCS Holiding Limited (3) I D Centriq Digital Solutions – L.L.C [2026] DIFC CFI 007 (10 April 2026)
A limited extension of time is justified to allow Defendants to file a jurisdiction challenge or Defence, but the lengthy extension sought is disproportionate given Defendants' prior notice and the need for expeditious proceedings. Procedural requests and regional instability do not justify further delay.
Source excerpt
Ozan v Owain [2026] DIFC ARB 029 (09 April 2026)
The Court held that the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under DIFC Arbitration Law and RDC Part 43 operates within a distinct procedural framework permitting ex parte orders and a post-order challenge mechanism. RDC 12.8 does not apply to such proceedings, and the applicant's procedural rights were adequately protected. The appeal had no real prospect of success and the stay application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Karthi Keyan Venkataramana v Ahmed Mohammad Abdul Rahman Ali [2026] DIFC CFI 110 (07 April 2026)
The application to conduct the trial remotely was refused because the credibility of key witnesses is central and the current situation does not warrant deviation from an in-person trial. Future applications may be considered if safety or security concerns arise closer to the trial date.
Source excerpt
Stelian Gheorghe v (1) Bsa Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates Llp (2) Jimmy Haoula [2026] DIFC CFI 045 (06 April 2026)
The Court refused permission to appeal because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the appeal. Immediate assessment was appropriate under RDC 38.30(1), the burden of proof was not reversed, the broad-brush approach was correctly applied, and there was no improper duplication or cross-subsidisation of costs.
Source excerpt
Stephan Karl Morgenstern v Saif Sultan Al Mehrzi Lawyers & Legal Consultancy [2026] DIFC CFI 036 (06 April 2026)
The Defendant must disclose documents identified in Appendix 1 as they are directly referred to in pleadings or encompassed by Defendant's case; privilege objections are invalid as Claimant was the client. Defendant's application is dismissed as requests are not properly the subject of document requests and documents are expected to be in Defendant's possession. Costs awarded to Claimant as Claimant was wholly successful.
Source excerpt
Explore more
