Claim No: ARB 029/2025

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

OZAN

Claimant/Respondent

and

OWAIN

Defendant/Applicant

---

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

---

UPON the Claimant’s Arbitration Claim dated 1 August 2025 seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award dated 10 November 2023 rendered under the auspices of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (the “Award”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 7 January 2026 recognising and enforcing the Award (the “R&E Order”) pursuant to Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008 (as amended) (the “Arbitration Law”) and Section II of Part 43 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)

AND UPON the Order dated 8 January 2026 dismissing the Defendant’s Application No. ARB-029-2025/1 dated 2 September 2025 disputing the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Jurisdictional Challenge Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 16 January 2026 seeking permission to appeal the R&E Order and a stay of execution of that Order (the “PTA Application” and the “Stay Application”)

AND UPON reviewing the parties’ written submissions, witness statements, skeleton arguments, bundles of authorities

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Defendant at a hearing held on 10 March 2026 before H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The PTA Application and the Stay Application are dismissed.

2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the Applications. The Respondent shall submit a statement of costs not exceeding 3 pages within 5 days of this Order.

Issued By:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 9 April 2026
At: 8am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Introduction

1. This is an Application brought by the Defendant, Owain (“Owain” or the “Applicant”), seeking permission to appeal the Order dated 7 January 2026 recognising and enforcing an arbitral award (the “R&E Order”).

2. The Applicant also seeks a stay of execution of the R&E Order pursuant to Rule 44.4 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), pending the determination of the PTA Application.

3. The Claimant, Ozan (“Ozan” or the “Respondent”), opposes both the PTA Application and the Stay Application.

4. Having considered the parties’ written submissions, the evidence before the Court, and the oral arguments advanced at the Hearing, I am satisfied that neither Application should be granted. The Applications are therefore dismissed for the reasons set out below.

Background

5. The background to these proceedings has been addressed in earlier orders and it is unnecessary to repeat that in full. It is sufficient to summarise the matters relevant to the present applications.

6. On 10 November 2023, the arbitral tribunal issued an Award in favour of the Respondent. The Award ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent the sum of USD 3,072,936.53, together with interest and costs. The Applicant did not satisfy the Award.

7. The Respondent subsequently commenced proceedings in the DIFC Courts seeking recognition and enforcement of the Award pursuant to Article 42 of the Arbitration Law and the procedural framework governing such applications contained in RDC Part 43.

8. Following service of the Arbitration Claim Form, the Applicant filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating its intention to challenge the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

9. The Applicant thereafter issued an Application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. That application was heard and subsequently dismissed by the Jurisdiction Challenge Order. Following the Jurisdiction Challenge Order, the Court issued the R&E Order for the Award.

10. The Applicant now seeks permission to appeal the R&E Order and requests a stay of execution of that Order pending the determination of the present Application.

Applicant’s Submissions

11. The Applicant submits that the Order dated 7 January 2026 recognising and enforcing the arbitral award was made in serious procedural error and that permission to appeal should therefore be granted together with a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal.

12. The Applicant’s central contention is that the proceedings had already become inter partes proceedings following service of the Arbitration Claim Form and the filing of an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to challenge jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the Court was no longer entitled to issue an ex parte enforcement order, and the procedural consequences prescribed by RDC Part 12 should have been followed once the jurisdiction challenge was dismissed.

13. The Applicant submits that the Court’s failure to follow that procedural framework deprived it of its procedural rights and therefore constitutes an arguable error of law with real prospects of success on appeal.

14. The Applicant further submits that unless a stay is granted, the appeal risks being rendered nugatory because enforcement of the Order may proceed before the procedural irregularity is determined.

15. The Applicant submits that the Respondent elected to commence the recognition and enforcement proceedings on a “with notice” basis. The Respondent served the Arbitration Claim Form on the Applicant on 4 August 2025, following a direction from the DIFC Courts Registry.

16. The Applicant argues that once the claim form was served and the Applicant filed an acknowledgment of service indicating its intention to contest jurisdiction, the proceedings necessarily became inter partes arbitration proceedings governed by the procedural framework set out in RDC 43.18-43.43.

17. The Applicant therefore submits that the Respondent could not thereafter rely upon the ex parte recognition and enforcement procedure contemplated by RDC 43.61 onwards, because that procedure applies only where recognition and enforcement proceedings are commenced without notice.

18. In the Applicant’s submission, once service occurred and an acknowledgment of service was filed, the arbitration claim was required to proceed in accordance with the normal procedural timetable applicable to arbitration claims under RDC Part 43.

19. The Applicant argues that once the Applicant filed an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to challenge jurisdiction, the proceedings were governed by RDC Part 12, which sets out the procedure for jurisdiction challenges.

20. The Applicant relies on the wording of RDC 12.8, which provides that where the Court does not grant a declaration that it lacks jurisdiction:

21. The Applicant submits that these consequences arise automatically once a jurisdiction challenge is dismissed and apply irrespective of the type of claim in which the jurisdiction challenge was made.

22. The Applicant therefore contends that after dismissal of the jurisdiction challenge, it was entitled to: 14 days to file a further acknowledgment of service under RDC 12.8(2); and 21 days thereafter to file evidence in answer under RDC 43.31.

23. The Applicant describes this combined period as a “35-day procedural entitlement.”

24. According to the Applicant, the issuance of the R&E Order before those procedural steps occurred deprived the Applicant of its procedural rights.

25. The Applicant submits that the Court committed a procedural error by issuing the R&E Order on 7 January 2026, before the Jurisdiction Challenge Order was issued 8 January 2026.

26. The Applicant argues that once the jurisdiction challenge was rejected, the procedural consequences set out in RDC 12.8 should have been triggered.

27. The Applicant therefore submits that the Order was issued prematurely and that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to file a fresh acknowledgment of service and evidence in answer before the R&E Order was made.

28. The Applicant disputes the Respondent’s contention that enforcement orders may be issued ex parte even after service of the arbitration claim form.

29. The Applicant submits that the ex parte procedure under RDC 43.61–43.75 applies only where the arbitration claim is genuinely brought without notice.

30. According to the Applicant, once the Respondent served the claim form and the proceedings progressed on notice, the Respondent could not later rely upon the ex parte procedure.

31. The Applicant therefore argues that the Respondent effectively forfeited the ex parte route when it chose to serve the arbitration claim form and proceed on a with-notice basis.

32. The Applicant contends that the Respondent cannot now rely upon the ex parte enforcement mechanism while simultaneously conducting the proceedings inter partes.

33. The Applicant also rejects the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant could have filed a further acknowledgment of service and responded to the enforcement order within the same 14-day period.

34. The Applicant submits that once the Court issued the R&E Order, the proceedings were effectively concluded, thereby preventing the Applicant from exercising the procedural rights contemplated by RDC 12.8.

35. In the Applicant’s submission, the procedural framework required the Court to determine the jurisdiction challenge first and thereafter allow the procedural timetable under RDC 12.8 and RDC 43.31 to run before determining the enforcement application.

36. The Applicant submits that absent a stay, enforcement proceedings may be commenced in the Dubai Courts, which would expose the Applicant to immediate execution of the judgment debt.

37. The Applicant emphasises that it is a DMCC-registered company with assets in Dubai, making enforcement straightforward.

Respondent’s Submissions

38. The Respondent opposes both the PTA Application and Stay Application. The Respondent submits that the appeal has no real prospect of success and raises no issue of general importance.

39. According to the Respondent, the Applicant’s arguments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the procedural framework governing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under RDC Part 43.

40. The Respondent contends that the Order was lawfully issued pursuant to the self-contained enforcement regime established by RDC 43.61-43.75, and that the Applicant’s procedural rights were adequately protected by the 14-day set-aside mechanism under RDC 43.70.

41. The Respondent submits that recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration Law and RDC Part 43 is a summary and procedural mechanism designed to give effect to arbitral awards in accordance with the pro-enforcement policy of the New York Convention.

42. The Respondent submits that once the requirements of Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law are satisfied, the Court is required to recognise and enforce the award unless one of the limited grounds under Article 44 applies.

43. The Respondent therefore argues that recognition and enforcement proceedings do not involve reconsideration of the merits of the underlying dispute.

44. The Respondent submits that RDC 43.62 expressly permits applications for recognition and enforcement to be made without notice.

45. The Respondent further submits that RDC 43.70 contemplates that enforcement orders will be made ex parte, subject to a subsequent opportunity for the respondent to apply to set the order aside within 14 days.

46. The Respondent argues that this procedure represents a deliberate balance between: ensuring swift enforcement of arbitral awards; and preserving procedural fairness through a post-order challenge mechanism.

47. The Respondent therefore submits that the Applicant’s argument, that it was entitled to be heard before the enforcement order was made, is inconsistent with the structure of the Rules.

48. The Respondent rejects the Applicant’s contention that service of the arbitration claim form transformed the proceedings into a purely inter partes process.

49. The Respondent submits that service of the claim form does not deprive the Court of its power to issue ex parte orders within ongoing proceedings.

50. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s reliance on RDC 12.8 is misplaced. According to the Respondent, RDC 12.8 applies to ordinary claims under Part 7 or Part 8, whereas the recognition and enforcement regime in RDC Part 43 constitutes a self-contained procedural framework.

51. The Respondent argues that the close timing between the R&E Order and the Jurisdiction Challenge Order merely reflects the fact that both decisions were reached following the hearing in December 2025.

52. The Respondent therefore submits that the Order was not issued in error but rather reflected the Court’s deliberate determination that it had jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the award.

53. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not identified any genuine prejudice arising from the Order.

54. According to the Respondent, the Applicant had full notice of the proceedings; was able to contest jurisdiction; and retained the right under RDC 43.70 to apply to set aside the enforcement order.

55. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s complaint concerns only the timing of procedural steps and does not demonstrate any substantive unfairness. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant’s reliance on RDC 4.7 to seek revocation of the Order is misconceived.

56. The Respondent argues that the enforcement regime in RDC Part 43 provides a specific and self-contained mechanism for challenging enforcement orders through the 14-day set-aside procedure.

57. The Respondent also opposes the Stay Application.

58. The Respondent submits that the burden lies on the Applicant to demonstrate why the successful party should be prevented from enforcing a judgment in its favour.

59. The Respondent argues that the Applicant has provided no evidence demonstrating a real risk that the Respondent would be unable to repay any sums recovered through enforcement.

Discussion and Analysis

60. The Applicants PTA Application is governed by RDC 44.19, which provides that:

Permission to appeal may only be given where the lower Court or the appeal Court considers that:

61. The requirement that an appeal demonstrate a real prospect of success is well established in the jurisprudence of the DIFC Courts. The test requires the Court to determine whether the proposed appeal carries a realistic, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success. It is not sufficient that the proposed appeal raises arguable points; the Court must be satisfied that those points disclose a genuine possibility of success on appeal.

62. The Applicant’s PTA Application is founded primarily upon an alleged procedural irregularity in the manner in which the R&E Order was issued. The Applicant contends that because the Arbitration Claim Form was served and because the Applicant filed an acknowledgment of service disputing jurisdiction, the proceedings necessarily became inter partes proceedings governed by the procedural timetable applicable to arbitration claims commenced with notice.

63. On that basis, the Applicant argues that, following the dismissal of its jurisdiction challenge, the procedural consequences contemplated by RDC 12.8 arose. In particular, the Applicant submits that it was entitled to file a further acknowledgment of service within 14 days, and thereafter to file evidence in answer in accordance with the timetable applicable to arbitration claims, before the Court could properly determine the recognition and enforcement application.

64. In my view, that argument proceeds from a misunderstanding of the procedural framework governing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration Law and the RDC.

The statutory framework governing recognition and enforcement

65. The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards within the DIFC is governed by Article 42 of the Arbitration Law. Article 42 provides that arbitral awards, irrespective of where they were made, shall be recognised as binding within the DIFC and shall be enforced, subject only to the limited grounds for refusal set out in Article 44.

66. This statutory provision reflects the pro-enforcement policy embodied in the New York Convention, which the DIFC Arbitration Law adopts. The Court’s role at the enforcement stage is therefore not to revisit the merits of the dispute determined by the arbitral tribunal, but rather to determine whether any of the narrowly defined grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement under Article 44 are established.

67. The procedural mechanism through which that statutory obligation is implemented is contained in Section II of RDC Part 43, which governs applications for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

68. Within that regime, RDC 43.62 expressly provides that an application for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may be made without notice. The rule states “An application under Article 42(1) of the Arbitration Law to enforce an award or under Article 43 of the Arbitration Law for recognition of an award may be made without notice in an Arbitration Claim Form.”

69. Where an order recognising or enforcing an arbitral award is made without notice, RDC 43.70 provides that the respondent may apply within 14 days after service of the order to set it aside. During that period the award may not be enforced, thereby preserving the respondent’s procedural protection.

70. These provisions establish a two-stage enforcement framework. First, the Court may grant recognition and enforcement on a prima facie basis. Secondly, the respondent is afforded a defined opportunity to challenge that order thereafter.

71. That structure reflects the policy underlying the Arbitration Law: efficient enforcement of arbitral awards, balanced by the respondent’s opportunity to invoke the limited grounds for refusal recognised under Article 44.

RDC 12.8

72. The Applicant’s principal submission is that once its jurisdiction challenge was dismissed, the procedural consequences set out in RDC 12.8 automatically arose and prevented the Court from issuing the R&E Order.

73. RDC 12.8 governs the procedural consequences that arise where a defendant unsuccessfully challenges jurisdiction under RDC Part 12, primarily in the context of ordinary civil claims. In those circumstances, the rule provides that the original acknowledgment of service ceases to have effect, the defendant may file a further acknowledgment of service, and the Court must give directions for the service of a defence or evidence.

74. The purpose of that provision is therefore to regulate the continuation of ordinary civil proceedings following the resolution of a jurisdiction dispute.

75. As explained above, recognition and enforcement proceedings under the DIFC Arbitration Law, however, operate within a distinct statutory and procedural framework provided by Section II of RDC Part 43, which contains a dedicated procedure governing recognition and enforcement applications.

76. Within that regime, the Rules expressly permit enforcement applications to be made without notice and provide a specific post-order mechanism for challenge through RDC 43.70.

77. Nothing in the language or structure of the RDC indicates that the dismissal of a jurisdiction challenge automatically displaces that enforcement framework or triggers the procedural timetable contemplated by RDC 12.8.

78. To accept the Applicant’s interpretation would undermine the efficiency of the enforcement framework and would be inconsistent with the purpose of RDC 43.62 and RDC 43.70.

79. I am therefore satisfied that RDC 12.8 has no operative role in the present context and does not prevent the Court from issuing a recognition and enforcement order under RDC Part 43 following the determination of a jurisdiction challenge.

The effect of service of the Arbitration Claim Form

80. The Applicant further argues that because the Arbitration Claim Form was served, the proceedings necessarily became inter partes proceedings and the Court was therefore precluded from issuing an order in ex parte form. I do not accept that submission.

81. The Rules expressly contemplate that recognition and enforcement may be sought without notice, and that the respondent’s right to challenge the order arises after the order has been made through the mechanism provided by RDC 43.70.

82. The fact that the Arbitration Claim Form was served does not remove the Court’s power to issue an order recognising and enforcing the award pursuant to the procedure contemplated by Section II of RDC Part 43.

83. The Applicant’s submission effectively conflates the existence of inter partes proceedings with the nature of individual orders made within those proceedings. As a matter of procedural practice, courts routinely issue without-notice orders within proceedings that are otherwise inter partes, where the procedural framework permits such orders. The Rules governing recognition and enforcement expressly provide for precisely such a mechanism.

84. Accordingly, the service of the Arbitration Claim Form did not deprive the Court of its power to issue the R&E Order.

Whether the R&E Order was issued in error

85. The Applicant also submits that the R&E Order was issued prematurely and before the Jurisdiction Challenge Order had been issued. I reject that submission.

86. The jurisdiction challenge was heard at the hearing in December 2025. Following that hearing, I determined that the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

87. In consequence of that determination, I directed the Registry to issue both the order dismissing the Jurisdiction Challenge Order and the R&E Order. The R&E Order was issued on 7 January 2026, and the jurisdiction order confirming the Court’s jurisdiction was issued on 8 January 2026.

88. The close proximity between those orders reflects the fact that both determinations followed the same hearing and my consideration of the issues raised at that hearing. The orders were intended to be issued contemporaneously. The fact that they were issued one day apart is properly understood as an administrative sequencing of the orders by the Registry, rather than as reflecting any separate or subsequent judicial determination.

89. There is accordingly no basis for concluding that the R&E Order was issued in error.

Revoking the order under RDC 4.7

90. The Applicant also contends that the Court ought to have revoked the R&E Order pursuant to RDC 4.7.

91. The power to vary or revoke orders under that provision must be exercised with considerable caution, particularly where the order in question constitutes a final order of the Court.

92. The Applicant has identified no exceptional circumstances that would justify the revocation of the R&E Order.

93. The arguments advanced by the Applicant merely repeat the procedural objections which form the basis of the proposed appeal. They do not disclose any material change of circumstances, new evidence, or procedural irregularity of the kind that would justify the exercise of the Court’s power under RDC 4.7.

94. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Court was correct not to revoke the R&E Order.

95. For the reasons set out above, the Applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are founded upon a misinterpretation of the procedural framework governing recognition and enforcement under the Arbitration Law and RDC Part 43.

96. The Applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success within the meaning of RDC 44.

97. The Applicant has therefore failed to establish that the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. In those circumstances, there is no basis upon which the Court should grant a stay of execution of the R&E Order.

98. The Applicant’s PTA Application and Stay Application are dismissed.

99. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the Applications. The Respondent shall file a statement of costs not exceeding three pages within five days of this Order.