IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) NADIL
(2) NOSHABA

Claimants/Applicants

and

(1)NAMEER
(2) NASEEMA

Defendants/Respondents

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI

UPON the Part 8 Claim Form filed in April 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s ex parte Urgent Application in April 2025, seeking a Worldwide Freezing Order and ancillary orders (the “Application”)

AND UPON the Urgent Application Hearing held before H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani in April 2025, with Counsel for the Claimants in attendance

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is rejected.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: April 2025
At: 4pm

1. This Application is brought by the Claimants on an urgent, without notice basis for:

2. This Application is brought in parallel to ongoing proceedings in Foreign Courts.

3. The Foreign Courts issued a Worldwide Freezing Order (the “Foreign WFO”), which was subsequently continued and remains in force.

4. Later, the Foreign Courts granted a freezing order against Naseema (the “Injunction Order”).

5. Naseema gave disclosure in response to the Injunction Order, which revealed substantial assets in Dubai.

6. The relief sought in this Application mirrors the Foreign WFO and the Injunction Order. It is submitted by the Claimants that a DIFC Courts order enforces additional necessary protection.

The Application

7. The merits of the Application were explored extensively. I agree that the basis of the Application satisfies the conditions of a good arguable case with sufficient urgency due to the high risk of dissipation of the relevant assets warranted to grant an order against the assets of the Respondents outside the DIFC as per the DIFC case law. However, the introduction of the new law, Law No. 2 of 2025 Concerning the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (the “New Law”), raises a very important question as to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant such relief over assets outside its immediate jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, in my view the determinative point of contention that remains central is the application of the relevant articles of the New Law on jurisdiction.

8. Counsel has taken the Court through the different ways of how this case would fall under the jurisdiction of the DIFC. Counsel submits that the introduction of the New Law makes no difference as it is “improbable” that the language used in the New Law would restrict the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to the DIFC only.

9. In my reading, the way the Application is pleaded makes it unclear as to whether this is a ‘fresh claim’ for interim relief, or an enforcement of the existing orders from the Foreign Courts. The distinction is important to make as different DIFC Laws will be engaged depending on the intention behind the Application, and Counsel elected to use both possible gateways in the submissions made during the Hearing.

10. I will address both gateways in turn; however, I will first assume the intention of the Application is to bring a ‘fresh claim’ seeking a new DIFC order against the Respondents respectively that mirror the existing orders from the Foreign Courts in accordance with the following excerpt from the Applicants’ Skeleton Argument, at paragraph 7:

“Nadil seeks relief which in large part mirrors the relief obtained against Nameer under the Foreign WFO, and against Naseema under the Injunction Order…Orders from the DIFC Courts will have more teeth… [the Respondents] cannot be trusted to comply with orders made by the Foreign Court” [emphasis added].

Second, I will address the application of the relevant New Law articles that would be engaged had the Application been intended to seek enforcement of the existing orders from the Foreign Courts.

Fresh Claim Discussion

11. In order to succeed as a fresh claim, the Application must pass through one of the jurisdictional gateways. Previously, these gateways were found in Article 5(A) of Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 and required that a claim must involve a party or event in the DIFC, or the parties must have consented to the jurisdiction of the DIFC. None of these gateways apply, as the Claimant is a foreign party seeking an order against assets that have not been shown to be within the DIFC or part of any DIFC entity, and the Respondents reside outside the DIFC.

12. The jurisdictional gateways in the New Law are at Article 14, which is relevant for new claims initiated in the DIFC Courts. Exclusive jurisdiction is given to the DIFC Courts in the event that the claim involves a DIFC entity, contract, incident, transaction, arbitral claim, or enforcement of an arbitral award or claims over which an international treaty or convention the UAE has acceded to. This is similar to Article 5(A) of the Old Law, though not exactly the same.

13. Article 14(A)(7) as relied on by Counsel, reads:

“Claims and applications over which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction under the DIFC Laws, DIFC Regulations, and the legislation in force in the Emirate, as well as any international treaty and convention to which the State has acceded or is a party to.”

It is therefore not relevant; the relief sought in the case of a fresh claim is a new injunction against the Respondents individually to work in conjunction with the existing orders from the Foreign Courts.

14. In this scenario, the order sought from the DIFC Courts is in addition to the orders obtained by the Foreign Courts, not a straight enforcement of the Foreign Orders. Therefore, Article 14(7) does not apply, as no “international treaty” or “convention” has been engaged. In addition, the gateways of Articles 14(1) to (6) do not apply, as it is explicitly repeatedly stated that a direct link to the DIFC – whether that be through a DIFC contract, DIFC body or establishment, by consent or otherwise – need be established. As the Respondents in this case are located outside of the DIFC and no direct asset link has been made to the DIFC for the purpose of the relief sought, then the jurisdictional gateways set by Article 14 have not been passed through.

15. Therefore, as a fresh claim, the Application fails on lack of jurisdiction as the Claimant failed to satisfy any of the gateways in Article 14 of the New Law.

Enforcement Discussion

16. In the event that the Application seeks enforcement of the existing orders of the Foreign Court, Article 31 of the New Law is engaged. It may not be explicitly pleaded that this Application is to be brought on this basis, but having rejected the Application as a fresh claim it is to the benefit of the Claimant to take the Application at the highest.

17. Comparisons were made by Counsel at the Hearing between the previous statute on jurisdiction, a combination of Articles 5(A)(1)(e) and 7(6) of Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, Article 24 of the DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004 (the “Old Law”) and the New Law. The language and syntax of the Old Law and New Law was submitted to be materially similar enough to engage the precedent set in Carmon Reestrutura-Engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais, (SU) LDA v Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003, which states that the DIFC Court has the jurisdiction and power to grant interim remedies, including freezing orders, in support of a foreign court judgment that is amenable to recognition and enforcement in the DIFC. If the precedent set in Carmon still stands, the New Law must be materially the same as the Old Law.

18. The aforementioned articles of the Old Law read as follows:

19. In comparison, the articles relied on by Counsel in the New Law read:

20. Counsel submitted that the New Law expressly grants the DIFC Court jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgments, and to hear applications for interim or precautionary measures, and that it is “improbable” that the DIFC Court’s powers are now limited to assets inside the DIFC due to precedent set interpreting Article 7(6) of the Old Law (as named prior), which uses the same words as Article 31(4) of the New Law.

21. Therefore, it is submitted that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to grant a freezing order, and ancillary relief against Nameer, and an injunction and ancillary relief against Naseema pursuant to Article 31(4) of the New Law.

22. In my judgment, Article 31(2) of the New Law does not apply to the Application on a similar vein. The phrase “in the event that the enforcement shall fall onto any of the DIFC Bodies, DIFC Establishments, Licensed DIFC Establishment or any other entity within the DIFC” creates a requirement of a direct link between the foreign judgment and the DIFC in order for the DIFC Courts to have jurisdiction to enforce it. Again, the Respondents do not have any direct link to any entity within the DIFC, nor does the relief sought or do the Foreign Orders list any asset or financial accounts that the Funds may be found in within the DIFC to follow the submissions made by Counsel at the Hearing; no evidence was filed to show a direct link. The foreign judgment must be against an entity within the DIFC.

23. Article 31 of the New Law introduces a new administration of enforcement that requires an asset, or something akin to an asset, to exist within the DIFC at the time of enforcement. This is distinct from the Old Law on enforcement that allows for the DIFC to be used as a conduit jurisdiction. Case law based on the Old Law should therefore not be applied to this case or any new enforcement regime.

24. Articles 14 and 31 of the New Law plainly require a direct link to the DIFC to be established for the Court to hear a fresh claim or enforce a foreign judgment. Whether this Application seeks a new order or enforcement of the existing WFO/Injunction Order, the DIFC Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief as there is no direct link to the DIFC to do so.

Conclusion

25. If the Application is to be treated as a fresh claim, I am not satisfied that a sufficient connection to the DIFC has been established for the claim to pass through one of the Article 14 gateways from the New Law.

26. If the Application is to be treated as an enforcement action for the existing WFO and/or Injunction Order, again the Claimant failed to show that there are existing or potential assets or entities within the DIFC to enforce the Foreign Court orders against. The New Law has re-established the DIFC as a self-contained jurisdiction when it comes to enforcement in accordance with the plain understanding of Article 31. The starting point should always be to establish a direct link to the DIFC.

27. Therefore, the Application is rejected on the basis of no jurisdiction for both limbs.

28. There shall be no order as to costs.