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
Decisions matching the current search
The DIFC Court of First Instance summarily assessed the Claimant’s costs of the Main Application at USD 25,000 and dismissed the Defendant’s costs application.
The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed a jurisdiction challenge, holding that “jurisdiction: United Arab Emirates” in the policy included the DIFC Courts and that the proceedings were not abusive.
The Court declined an indefinite adjournment request, vacated the 7 September 2026 hearing due to listing congestion, and re-fixed it for 17 September 2026.
The DIFC Court ordered Pippa to provide AED 300,000 security for Phineas’s costs in the set-aside application, and stayed the application pending security.
The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed a jurisdiction challenge, holding that “Law & jurisdiction: United Arab Emirates” included the DIFC Courts and that the claim was not abusive.
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.
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
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
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
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
Explore more
