Sanjeev Sawhney (2) Alka Sawhney v UBS AG [2026] DIFC CFI 062 (24 February 2026)

Sanjeev Sawhney (2) Alka Sawhney v UBS AG [2026] DIFC CFI 062 (24 February 2026)

The applications for permission to appeal, stay, and extension are rejected because the November Order was a proper exercise of case management discretion, the pleaded defence is arguable, references to industry standard are evidentially relevant, and no error of law or principle is demonstrated. The Claimants' grounds lack real prospect of success and no compelling reason for appeal is established.

Citation
[2026] DIFC CFI 062
Parties
Claimant: Sanjeev Sawhney; Claimant: Alka Sawhney; Defendant: UBS AG
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Order on Appeal and Stay Applications
Outcome
Applications rejected
Legal Topics
Client Classification, Disclosure, Strike Out Applications, Regulatory Compliance, Appeal Procedure
Financial Regulation Banking Law Civil Procedure Client Classification Disclosure Strike Out Applications Regulatory Compliance Appeal Procedure

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjeev Sawhney

Claimant

Alka Sawhney

Claimant

UBS AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Order on Appeal and Stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the November Order
  2. 2 Whether a stay and extension of time for compliance should be granted
  3. 3 Relevance of industry standard and third-party classifications to regulatory compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal, stay, and extension are rejected because the November Order was a proper exercise of case management discretion, the pleaded defence is arguable, references to industry standard are evidentially relevant, and no error of law or principle is demonstrated. The Claimants' grounds lack real prospect of success and no compelling reason for appeal is established.

Court Disposition

Applications rejected

Orders

  • Appeal Notice rejected
  • Stay and Extension Application rejected