Claim No. ARB 043/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

ORATIO

Claimant/Applicant

and

ORANGIA

Defendant/Respondent

ORDER OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

UPON the Claimant’s Application No. ARB-043-2025/1 dated 30 December 2025 seeking permission pursuant to Rule 31.12–31.14 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) to rely on expert evidence from a locally qualified UAE advocate on matters of UAE public policy (the “Application”)

AND UPON considering the written submissions and evidence filed by both parties

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s cost 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: 6 February 2026
At: 11am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Introduction

1. This is the Claimant’s Application dated 30 December 2025 (the “Application”) seeking permission, pursuant to Rule 31.12-31.14 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), to rely on expert evidence from a locally qualified UAE advocate on matters said to engage UAE public policy.

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

Background

3. I have had regard to the factual and procedural background as set out in the parties’ submissions, which is not repeated here.

The Applicant’s Submissions

4. The Claimant submits, in summary one of the grounds of the set-aside application is that it would be contrary to “a fundamental principle of natural justice and UAE public policy” for a tribunal to determine a case against a respondent on the basis of an argument not advanced by the claimant in the arbitration, particularly where the respondent had no proper opportunity to respond.

5. The Claimant relies upon prior DIFC authority as supporting the proposition that this Court “will rarely be in a position” to make findings related to UAE public policy without the assistance of expert evidence.

6. The Claimant submits that expert evidence is therefore “necessary”, or at least “reasonably required” within the meaning of RDC 31.12, to resolve the proceedings fairly and efficiently.

7. The Claimant states that it has not been practicable to identify a particular expert in the time available and that, in the interests of costs, an expert would only be engaged if permission is granted.

The Respondent’s Submissions

8. The Defendant submits that the Application is procedurally and substantively misconceived and is, in reality, an attempt to delay listing and final determination of the set-aside claim.

9. The Defendant submits the Claimant has failed to identify any concrete, disputed or properly particularised issue of UAE public policy. The Application states only a generalised proposition at a high level of abstraction and does not point to any specific rule of UAE law said to be engaged.

10. The Defendant submits the Claimant’s complaint is in substance an alleged procedural unfairness point which is already governed by Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration Law.

11. The Defendant submits that the DIFC authorities relied upon by the Claimant do not establish any rule that expert evidence is required whenever public policy is invoked. Expert evidence may assist only where there is a genuine dispute as to the content or existence of a specific rule of UAE public policy.

12. The Defendant further submits that the Application is late. The Claimant issued the set-aside claim on 3 November 2025 and filed multiple rounds of evidence without identifying any specific UAE law issue or demonstrating any necessity for expert evidence.

13. The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Application and its costs.

The Applicable Legal Framework

14. Expert evidence in DIFC Court proceedings is governed by RDC Part 31. The relevant provisions may be summarised as follows:

15. In summary, pursuant to RDC 31.12–31.14, read together with the Court’s general case-management powers under RDC 1.6 and RDC 4.2, the Court retains a discretion to refuse permission for expert evidence where such evidence is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, would be disproportionate, or is directed to matters within the Court’s own competence.

16. In arbitral-related proceedings, including applications under Article 41 of the Arbitration Law, these principles apply with particular force, given the exceptional and limited nature of annulment jurisdiction and the Court’s duty to avoid the re-litigation of arbitral disputes.

Discussion

(1) No identifiable UAE public policy issue requiring expert evidence

17. The Application does not identify any specific rule, doctrine, or norm of UAE public policy said to be in issue. Rather, it proposes expert evidence on a general proposition: that it would offend natural justice and UAE public policy for a tribunal to decide a matter on a basis not argued by the claimant, thereby depriving the respondent of a proper opportunity to respond.

18. Stated at that level of generality, the proposition does not disclose a genuine dispute about the content of UAE public policy requiring expert elucidation. It is, in substance, a complaint about procedural fairness.

(2) The issue is properly analysed under Article 41(2)(a)(ii), not as a free-standing expert question

19. The Claimant’s pleaded complaint, being deprived of the opportunity to meet a case not advanced, is directly addressed by Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of the Arbitration Law. I am well able to determine, on the evidential record, whether the Claimant was unable to present his case, whether there was any material procedural unfairness, and whether any such unfairness meets the statutory threshold for annulment.

20. I am not persuaded that an opinion from a locally qualified UAE advocate would assist me in determining whether the arbitral process complied with the requirements of fairness and opportunity to be heard as a matter of the DIFC Arbitration Law applied by this Court.

(3) UAE public policy as applied in the DIFC does not, without more, require expert proof

21. I accept the Defendant’s submission that the authorities relied upon by the Claimant do not establish a default rule that expert evidence is required whenever public policy is invoked. Expert evidence may be useful where there is a genuine dispute as to the existence, content, or application of a specific UAE public policy norm. That is not this case on the Application as presented.

22. In the absence of any identified, disputed rule of UAE public policy, the Application amounts to an attempt to obtain permission for an expert report in order to re-characterise a procedural complaint as a public policy challenge. That is neither necessary nor reasonably required.

(4) Timing and proportionality

23. The timing of the Application reinforces the conclusion that permission should be refused. I accept the submission that the Claimant commenced the set-aside claim on 3 November 2025 and filed multiple rounds of evidence without identifying any particular UAE public policy rule or explaining why expert evidence was required. The Application was raised only after discussions arose concerning the listing of the substantive hearing.

24. Permitting expert evidence in these circumstances would be likely to introduce delay and cost disproportionate to any potential evidential value, contrary to the overriding objective and the Court’s duty to manage cases efficiently and proportionately.

Conclusion

25. For the reasons above, I am satisfied that the proposed expert evidence is not necessary or reasonable.

26. The Application is dismissed.

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