Claim No: ARB 024/2025

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

OLYMPIO

Claimant

and

OLWIN

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 9 July 2025 recognising and Enforcing the Final Award dated 11 June 2025 (the “R&E Order”)

AND UPON the Worldwide Freezing Order issued by Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 21 July 2025, following an application by the Claimant, granted in support of the enforcement of the Award (the “WFO”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. ARB-024-2025/6 dated 1 August 2025, seeking a stay of all proceedings in ARB-024-2025 and related enforcement proceedings, pending the determination of a jurisdictional conflict application before the Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal (the “Stay Application”)

AND UPON reviewing the Parties’ submissions

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant’s Stay Application is dismissed.

2. The Defendant shall continue to comply with the WFO issued by this Court on 21 July 2025 and with all associated enforcement directions.

3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the Application. The Claimant shall file a statement of costs, not exceeding 3 pages, within 5 days of the date of this Order.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 7 August 2025
At: 5pm

Introduction

1. This is the Defendant’s application dated 1 August 2025 for an order to stay all proceedings in ARB-024-2025 pending final determination of Application No. 2 of 2025 filed before the Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal (the “CJT Application”). The Defendant seeks the stay pursuant to Article 7 of Dubai Decree No. 29 of 2024 concerning the Judicial Tribunal for the Resolution of Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts (the “Decree”).

2. The Defendant contends that registration of a conflict claim before the CJT on 31 July 2025 automatically triggers a suspension of all proceedings before this Court, including all pending applications, directions, and enforcement steps taken in support of the Claimant’s recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award dated 11 June 2025 (the “Award”).

3. For the reasons set out below, this Application is dismissed.

Background

4. The underlying dispute concerns a Final Award issued on 11 June 2025 in favour of the Claimant, in which the Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant approximately USD 7.57 million, comprising damages, interest, legal costs, and arbitration fees.

5. The Claimant commenced enforcement proceedings before this Court on 26 June 2025 by filing Arbitration Claim No. ARB-024-2025. On 9 July 2025, the Court issued a R&E Order pursuant to Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law (the “R&E Order”).

6. Following recognition, the Claimant raised concerns that the Defendant had failed to comply with the Award and might dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement. On that basis, the Claimant filed an Application seeking interim protective measures. On 21 July 2025, the Court issued a Worldwide Freezing Order (the “WFO”) in support of enforcement.

7. On 28 July 2025, the Defendant filed a jurisdictional conflict claim before the Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal (the “CJT”), asserting that the Dubai Courts (rather than the DIFC Courts) have jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Award. That claim was registered as Application No. 2 of 2025 on 31 July 2025, and a copy was served on the Claimant.

8. On 1 August 2025, the Defendant filed the present Application No. ARB-024-2025/6, seeking an immediate stay of all DIFC proceedings and enforcement steps, including those relating to the WFO and the ongoing directions sought by the Claimant.

The Defendant’s Submission

9. The Defendant submits that, pursuant to Article 7 of Dubai Decree No. 29 of 2024, the effect of filing a jurisdictional conflict claim before the CJT is to automatically stay all proceedings before the DIFC Courts concerning the conflicting matter, pending resolution of the conflict by the CJT.

10. In support of this contention, the Defendant relies on the registration of Application No. 2 of 2025 before the CJT on 31 July 2025, which explicitly identifies the current DIFC enforcement proceedings (ARB-024-2025 and ENF-133-2025) as the subject of the alleged conflict. The Defendant contends that the CJT has not dismissed the application and that it is formally under review, thus engaging the mandatory stay provision under Article 7.

11. The Defendant maintains that the conflict claim raises serious issues concerning the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to recognise and enforce the Award. In particular, the Defendant argues that the seat of the arbitration was Dubai (mainland), not the DIFC, and that accordingly, jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Dubai Courts. On this basis, the Defendant seeks a full suspension of these proceedings, including all pending applications and directions, until the CJT has rendered its determination.

The Claimant’s Submission

12. The Claimant strongly opposes the Stay Application. It contends that Article 7 of Decree No. 29 of 2024 does not provide for an automatic or immediate stay upon mere registration of a jurisdictional conflict claim.

13. The Claimant further submits that the underlying enforcement proceedings do not involve any competing proceedings before the Dubai Courts on the same subject matter. The issue raised by the Defendant, concerning the seat of arbitration, is not determinative of enforcement jurisdiction. The Claimant maintains that the DIFC Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to recognise foreign arbitral awards seated outside the DIFC, including in mainland Dubai, under Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law.

14. It is also submitted that to accept the Defendant’s interpretation would allow any party to unilaterally derail enforcement by filing speculative conflict claims before the CJT, thereby abusing the Decree’s mechanism and undermining the effectiveness of interim and enforcement relief.

15. Finally, the Claimant argues that, even if a stay were ultimately granted in respect of the underlying enforcement claim, the WFO and related compliance directions should remain in force pending final determination. The Claimant relies on Credit Suisse v Goel [2020] DIFC CA 008, in which the Court held that a tribunal with prima facie jurisdiction may continue to grant interim relief to preserve the status quo.

Discussion and Analysis

16. The Stay Application raises the question of whether Article 7 of Dubai Decree No. 29 of 2024 (“Decree 29”) mandates an automatic stay of these proceedings upon the registration of a jurisdictional conflict claim before the CJT.

17. The Defendant’s case rests on a literal reading of Article 7, which provides that once the Judicial Tribunal “considers a request,” all proceedings and enforcement steps before competing courts shall be suspended pending the Tribunal’s decision. It argues that registration of Application No. 2 of 2025 constitutes “consideration” by the Tribunal, triggering the mandatory stay.

18. However, this interpretation is inconsistent with established DIFC Court authority. In Lakhan v Lamia [2021] DIFC CA 001, the Court of Appeal held that mere filing of a conflict claim is insufficient to stay DIFC proceedings; a stay arises only once the CJT’s authority has been established and a bona fide conflict of jurisdiction is identified. This principle was reaffirmed in Naatiq v Nabeeh (ARB-018-2024) and Five Holding Ltd v Qatar Insurance Company [2021] DIFC CFI 027, which emphasised that Article 7 must be read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Decree, requiring a threshold finding by the CJT before a suspension is engaged.

19. The Court also notes that Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law empowers the DIFC Courts to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, including those seated outside the DIFC, provided the requirements of the New York Convention are met. As confirmed in the Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 11 July 2025, the DIFC Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to enforce the Award, irrespective of the seat being onshore Dubai.

20. The Defendant’s reliance on Decree 29 does not displace this Court’s preliminary jurisdiction to proceed with enforcement and related interim measures. To accept the Defendant’s argument would permit any party to unilaterally paralyse DIFC enforcement proceedings by lodging a conflict claim, irrespective of its merits. Such a result would undermine both the efficiency of enforcement and the rule of law.

21. Even if the CJT were ultimately to determine that a jurisdictional conflict exists, this Court retains power to maintain interim relief pending that determination. The decision in Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Ltd v Goel [2020] DIFC CA 008 confirms that the Court may grant and continue protective measures to preserve the status quo while jurisdictional questions are resolved.

22. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the registration of Application No. 2 of 2025 by the CJT requires an immediate suspension of these proceedings. No decision of the CJT has yet established its authority or declared the existence of a jurisdictional conflict. The Stay Application is therefore premature and without merit.

Conclusion

23. For these reasons, the Stay Application is dismissed.