DIFC courts: further arbitration-friendly judgments

1. In Naidoo v (1) Nofret (2) Nandini (3) Nurine (4) Nadidah ARB 011/2025 (9 May 2025), the DIFC Courts reaffirmed their refusal to interfere with interim procedural orders and emphasised their established policy of minimal interference in arbitral proceedings. The Claimant’s application “seeking interim injunctive relief to prevent the continuation of an evidentiary hearing in arbitration proceedings conducted by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”), and an order setting aside or varying the Tribunal’s procedural decision dated 19 February 2025”, was dismissed. The principal reasons for that were:

• The Tribunal’s procedural rulings did not constitute arbitral awards for the purposes of Article 41 and therefore could not be set aside by the Court.
• The DIFC Courts would only intervene in arbitrations in circumstances permitted by Articles 10, 11 and 25 of the Arbitration Law: no denial of due process or serious procedural irregularity was established.

2. In Muhallam v Muhaf ARB 021/2022 (19 September 2023) and its appeal in Neal v Nadir [2024] DIFC CA 001 (22 March 2024), the DIFC Courts confirmed that interim awards are enforceable. This is the case in arbitrations seated in the DIFC and elsewhere, albeit pursuant to different Articles of the DIFC Arbitration Law. A key element in this case was that the interim measure the applicant was seeking to enforce was titled “Provisional Award on Interim Relief” (it was an injunction, a freezing order and an order for ancillary disclosure). The DIFC Courts found that an interim measure could take the form of an award, and the statute must use the word “award” in a consistent manner, an award which granted interim measures must be an award which is enforceable under Part 4 of the statute. As a consequence, there was no need for “recognition” of the Tribunal’s award and the “Provisional Award” could be enforced.

Conclusion

These judgments are indicative of the pro-arbitration stance of the DIFC courts and give further comfort to contracting parties when entering into a contract where there may be relevant assets in the UAE and/or a party is proposing arbitration with a DIFC seat.

Specifically, the first is a cautionary tale to parties seeking to challenge procedural orders before the DIFC Courts, save in cases of serious irregularity or denial of due process. The second clarifies how the DIFC Courts will interpret an “award”, partial, interim or final, delivered by arbitral tribunals seated in the DIFC and elsewhere.

We have specialist lawyers with experience in enforcing court judgments and arbitral awards in the UK or in other jurisdictions. If you would like advice on any of these matters or are in the early stages of considering your litigation strategy for a potential dispute, please get in touch with our Disputes team.