Claim No. ARB 043/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

ORATIO

Claimant/Respondent

and

ORANGIA

Defendant/Applicant

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

UPON the Defendant’s Urgent Application No. ARB-043-2025/2 dated 26 January 2026 seeking an order that the Claimant provide security into an escrow account pending determination of the proceedings (the “Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Arbitration Claim dated 3 November 2025 seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 11 August 2025 (the “Set Aside Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Arbitration Claim dated 10 December 2025 seeking recognition and enforcement of the said arbitral award pursuant to Article 44 of the DIFC Arbitration Law (the “R&E Application”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 13 January 2026 consolidating the proceedings (the “Consolidation Order”)

AND UPON hearing counsel for the Defendant/Applicant and counsel for the Claimant/Respondent at the hearing held before H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi on 2 February 2026 (the “Hearing”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the Application. 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: 13 February 2026
At: 1pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Introduction

1. This is the Defendant’s Urgent Application No. ARB-043-2025/2 dated 26 January 2026 (the “Application”) seeking an order, pursuant to RDC Part 25 and Article 44(2) of DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008 (the “DIFC Arbitration Law”), requiring the Claimant (also “Respondent”) to provide “appropriate security” by paying the full amount of the arbitral award dated 11 August 2025 (the “Award”) into an escrow account (or into Court or such neutral mechanism) pending determination of the Claimant’s Application to set aside the Award (the “Set-Aside Application”).

2. The sum sought as security is AED 14,043,096.42 (the “Award Sum”), being the principal amount that has been awarded (with the Application also referring to interest and costs as set out in the Award).

3. I heard oral submissions from counsel for both parties on 2 February 2026, and considered the written evidence and submissions filed for the Application.

4. For the reasons set out below, the Application is dismissed.

Background

5. The background below is confined to matters relevant to the determination of this Application. I have considered all material placed before me on the Court file, and no adverse inference should be drawn from the exclusion of any fact from this summary

6. The underlying dispute between the Parties related to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 21 December 2020 (the “Original Agreement”) pursuant to which the Claimant sold to the Defendant Villa in Dubai (the “Property”) for a price of AED 31,000,000.

7. The arbitration commenced and on 11 August 2025, the Tribunal issued the Award ordering the Claimant to pay the amount of AED 14,043,096.42 (plus interest and costs as set out in the Award).

8. On 3 November 2025, the Claimant filed the Set-Aside Application pursuant to Article 41 of the DIFC Arbitration Law. On 10 December 2025, the Defendant made an Application to seek recognition and enforcement (“R&E Application”) of the Award before DIFC.

9. By Order dated 13 January 2026, H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi ordered that the R&E Application and the Set-Aside Application be consolidated (the “Consolidation Order”).

10. Against that procedural background, the Defendant issued the present Application seeking security in the form of payment of the Award Sum into escrow pending determination of the proceedings.

Applicant’s Submissions

11. The Applicant’s submissions may be summarised as follows:

Article 44(2) is engaged notwithstanding consolidation

12. The Applicant’s primary submission was that, as a result of the Consolidation Order, enforcement of the Award is effectively adjourned because recognition/enforcement will not proceed in parallel but will await determination of the Set-Aside Application.

13. The Applicant submitted that the legal framework does not provide for an automatic stay of enforcement merely because a set-aside application is issued, and that consolidation has the practical effect of suspending the timely pursuit of recognition/enforcement.

14. The Applicant identified the key considerations as:

• Whether the set-aside is brought bona fide or as delaying tactics;
• Whether the set-aside has at least a realistic prospect of success; and
• The delay occasioned by any adjournment and resulting prejudice to the award creditor.

15. It submitted that the Court is not required to determine the merits of the set-aside, but should take a provisional view and, at minimum, order substantial security so that the Award is not rendered hollow by delay.

Set-aside not bona fide; pattern of delay

16. The Applicant contended that the Set-Aside Application evidenced a pattern of conduct intended to delay enforcement rather than to pursue a meritorious annulment.

17. It relied on:

• The timing of the Set-Aside Application being filed at the end of the statutory three-month period;
• The later application for expert evidence on UAE public policy;
• Alleged attempts to place evidence in opposition to ratification notwithstanding Article 44(3);
• Alleged conduct during the arbitration said to show a pattern of delay.

18. The Applicant additionally asserted that the absence of a fixed hearing date, together with asserted unavailability and interlocutory steps, showed that final resolution was neither imminent nor certain.

Real prejudice and enforcement difficulty

19. The Applicant submitted that absent security there is a real risk that enforcement may be materially prejudiced by delay.

20. It relied on evidence said to show:

• A history of asset movement, including sale of the property on 31 October 2022 while the dispute existed;
• That the Tribunal recorded conduct creating “a serious and real risk” in the underlying transaction;
• That known assets are mortgaged, exposing the Applicant’s to priority risk of third-party lenders and reducing practical recoverability; and
• That the Respondent had limited liquidity based on disclosed bank statements.

21. The Applicant emphasised that the relevant question is not whether assets exist “on paper” but whether they are readily available, liquid, and realistically enforceable, and it drew a distinction between personal and corporate assets.

22. The Applicant submitted that payment into escrow is a recognised and proportionate form of security, not equivalent to premature enforcement, and that it preserves the status quo by safeguarding funds pending the Court’s final determination.

Respondent’s Submissions

23. The Respondent opposed the Application, contending that it fails at the statutory gateway and, in any event, is unsupported by evidence and oppressive in effect.

24. The Respondent’s submissions may be summarised as follows.

Article 44(2) is not engaged

25. The Respondent’s primary submission was jurisdictional: Article 44(2) is not engaged because there has been no adjournment of recognition or enforcement in this case.

26. The Respondent submitted that:

• The Recognition Proceedings were commenced after the Set-Aside Application and were not adjourned;
• Consolidation is not the same as adjournment, and the Court should not rewrite the statutory condition; and
• At the time of the Consolidation Order, the Recognition Proceedings were not at an advanced stage and the time for filing evidence in answer had not expired.

27. The Respondent additionally advanced a connected submission that Article 44(2) is derived from the New York Convention regime for foreign awards and that the conditions covered by Article 44(2) concerns delay where set-aside is in a different forum beyond the enforcement court’s control. He submitted that where both matters are before the DIFC Court, the Court controls the timetable by case management.

No evidential basis; no real risk of dissipation

28. The Respondent submitted that the Application, though framed under Article 44(2), proceeds in substance on a freezing-order premise and therefore requires solid evidence of unjustified dissipation.

29. The Respondent submits that:

• He has substantial assets in the UAE and affirmed he has no intention to dissipate;
• The sale of the Property in October 2022 was not dissipation, but conversion of asset form for commercial reasons, and is temporally remote; and
• The Applicant did not seek freezing relief during the arbitration, which he said undermines their present assertions.

Substantial UAE assets; enforceability

30. The Respondent submitted that he has substantial assets within the UAE, including:

• A portfolio of 11 properties said to have combined available equity far exceeding the Award Sum;
• A valuation history for property, including reliance on a commercial valuation and a Dubai Land Department valuation, and evidence to show variability of DLD valuations;
• Ownership of UAE businesses including Omari and Otto, with values asserted by reference to a letter from auditors based on audited accounts; and
• A 10% stake in Fujairah Creative City Free Zone said to be valuable.

31. The Respondent submission was that the Applicant would be able to enforce if the Set-Aside Application fails, and that the Application seeks relief going beyond what is necessary or proper.

Oppression, stifling, and proportionality

32. The Respondent submitted that ordering payment of the full Award Sum within 7 days would be impossible to comply with and would stifle a genuine claim.

33. The Respondent further submitted that:

• The Applicant’s proposed order was coercive and tantamount to interim enforcement;
• The proposed penal notice was an overreach, and there is no basis to attach penal consequences to a security order under Article 44(2); and
• The Application was said to be oppressive especially given the expectation that the consolidated hearing could be listed in mid-March, and the Court’s case management control.

Undertaking in damages

34. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had not provided financial information to demonstrate that any undertaking in damages would be meaningful, which he said weighed against the making of the interim relief.

Discussion

35. I approach this Application as one made under Article 44(2) of the DIFC Arbitration Law and RDC Part 25.

36. Article 44(2) confers a discretionary power in specific circumstances, namely where an application for setting aside has been made and the Court considers it proper to adjourn its decision on recognition/enforcement, and “may also” order appropriate security.

37. I accept, as both parties recognised in submissions, that at this interlocutory stage it is not the Court’s role to pre-determine the Set-Aside Application. The Court’s task on the Application is to determine: (i) whether the statutory gateway for Article 44(2) is engaged on the facts and procedural posture of this case; and (ii) if it is, whether discretion should be exercised to order security, and in what form.

38. The Application proceeds on the proposition that consolidation is in substance equivalent to an adjournment of recognition/enforcement. I do not accept that submission.

39. The condition in Article 44(2) is not an invitation to dispense with the statutory structure by reference to broad notions of practical effect. The provision is drafted in conditional terms: it contemplates that the Court may adjourn its decision and may also order security. The ordering of security is tethered to that procedural posture.

40. On the record before me, there was no adjourned recognition/enforcement hearing from which the Court can sensibly infer that the statutory condition has been met.

41. The R&E Application commenced after the Set-Aside Application and, at the time of consolidation, the proceedings were at an early stage. Consolidation was a case-management step directed to efficient determination of intertwined issues concerning the same parties and to avoid inconsistent outcomes; it was not, on the material before the Court, a decision to adjourn recognition/enforcement in the sense contemplated by Article 44(2).

42. I accept the Respondent’s submission that the DIFC Court’s control over the timetable in circumstances where both the set aside and recognition/enforcement are before the same Court is a relevant contextual factor.

43. Where the Court is managing the consolidated proceedings, the “adjournment-security” mechanism which is classically engaged when enforcement is sought in one forum while annulment is pursued in another forum beyond the enforcement court’s control does not arise in the same way.

44. For those reasons, I conclude that Article 44(2) is not engaged on the present facts and procedural posture because there has been no adjournment of the Court’s decision on recognition/enforcement within the meaning of that provision. That conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the Application.

45. Furthermore, payment of the full Award Sum within a short period, into escrow, in advance of determination of the consolidated proceedings, has a coercive character. I accept the Respondent’s submission that, in its practical effect, such an order risks operating as a form of interim enforcement rather than a neutral preservation measure.

46. I am satisfied that the evidential record before me does not support the conclusion that absent escrow security, enforcement will be rendered materially prejudiced in the way contended.

Conclusion

47. For the reasons above, the Application is dismissed.

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