April 17, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 039/2025
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
EMIRATES NBD BANK PJSC
Claimant
and
(1) RASHED ABULAZIZ ALMAKHAWI
(2) ABDULAZIZ RASHED ABDULAZIZ MOHAMMED ALMAKHAWI
(3) HESSA RASHED ABULAZIZ ALMAKHAWI
(4) SHAMMA RASHED ABULAZIZ ALMAKHAWI
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK
UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Michael Black dated 18 March 2026 (the “18 March Order” or the “WFO”)
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Michael Black dated 3 April 2026 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/4 dated 22 January 2026, seeking to set aside the Default Judgment of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 9 January 2026 (“CFI-039-2025/4”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/5 dated 16 February 2026 seeking to contest the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction (“CFI-039-2025/5”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/6 dated 16 February 2026 seeking to an extension of time to make an application under Part 12 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) disputing the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction (“CFI-039-2025/6”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/7 dated 30 March 2026 seeking variation of the Judgment (“CFI-039-2025/7” or the “Extension Application”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/8 dated 6 April 2026 for an unless order that unless the Second Defendant complies with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO, the Extension Application shall be dismissed (“CFI-039-2025/8” or the “Unless Order Application”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/9 dated 13 April 2026 seeking an order that its email correspondence dated 8 April 2026 (the “Appellant’s Email”) shall stand as service of the Appeal Notice seeking renewed permission to appeal the 18 March Order (the “Renewed Application”) and shall stand as filed in time (“CFI-039-2025/9” or the “Application”)
AND UPON the Renewed Application being formally filed on the eRegistry portal on 14 April 2026 (the “Appeal Notice”)
AND UPON review of the submissions on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Application CFI-039-2025/7 is dismissed.
2. Application CFI-039-2025/8 is granted - unless by not later than 4pm GST on 20 April 2026, the Second Defendant gives disclosure of information as to his assets and swears and serves on the Claimant an affidavit setting out that information in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO, he shall not be permitted to advance any defence to the claims in Claim No. CFI-039-2025.
3. Application CFI-039-2025/9 is granted to the extent that the attachment to the Second Defendant’s email (now filed on 14 April 2026) shall stand as the Appellant’s Notice and the Appellant’s Renewed Application pursuant to RDC 44.9, and shall be treated as filed on 8 April 2026. Otherwise, the Application is dismissed and the costs shall be costs in the proposed appeal.
4. The Second Defendant is refused permission to appeal.
5. On the ex parte application of the Claimant, the Second Defendant, shall, by no later than 4pm GST on 20 April 2026:
(a) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all bank statements from 1 January 2020 to date within his possession or control (including any document accessible through online banking platforms) in relation to each of the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of the Second Defendant's unsworn affidavit served on 10 April 2026 (the "Unsworn Affidavit");
(b) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all communications, invoices and ledgers from 1 September 2022 to date within his possession or control relating to the acquisition of metals and/or gemstones and/or jewellery referred to in Schedule D of the Unsworn Affidavit and the subsequent disposal thereof;
(c) Make a written request by email to UBS Switzerland AG and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank PJSC (copying in his last relationship managers in respect of those banks) for all bank statements for a period of 6 years to date or (if earlier) the date on which the relevant account was closed relating to the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of the Unsworn Affidavit for the above banks;
(d) The costs of the Application are reserved.
6. The Orders on Application CFI-039-2025/8 and the Further Disclosure Order shall bear penal notices.
7. Paragraph 6(1) of the WFO shall be amended to read:
“(1) The property known as: Land/plot number 1999 in Wadi Al Safa 3 (Municipality number 600-7985);”
8. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of Application Nos. CFI-039- 2025/7 and CFI-039-2025/8 in the sum of USD 23,833.31.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 April 2026
At: 3pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
1. The background to these proceedings is set out in the judgment issued on 3 April 2026 (the “Judgment”). I made a world-wide freezing Order against the Defendants on 18 March 2026 (the “WFO” or the “18 March Order”) paragraphs 9 and 10 of which ordered that the Defendants:
(a) must by 4pm on 27 March 2026 and to the best of their ability inform the Applicant’s legal representatives of:
(i) all the Respondent’s assets worldwide exceeding USD 10,000 in market value (ignoring charges or other security) whether in the Respondent’s own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets. For the avoidance of doubt, in respect of any Precious Metals and Gemstones, such information shall include their location and the details of any past and present custodian and/or vault or storage provider;
(ii) details of all charges or other security over such assets including the amount currently secured thereby;
(b) must by 4pm on 27 March 2026 swear and serve on the Applicant’s legal representatives an affidavit setting out the information referred to in paragraph 9 of this Order.
2. There are before me three applications:
(a) CFI-039-2025/7 – the Second Defendant (or “D2”) applies for an Order that:
(i) Pending the determination of this application, the time for compliance by D2 with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the 18 March Order 'be extended until further order or 4.00pm GST on 10 April 2026, whichever is earlier;
(ii) Pursuant to RDC 4.2(1) and paragraph 14 of the 18 March Order, the time for compliance by D2 with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the 18 March Order be extended until 4pm GST on 10 April 2026;
(iii) Save as varied by the order sought above, the 18 March Order remain in full force and effect;
(iv) The application be dealt with urgently on the papers or, alternatively, at the first available short hearing on abridged time;
(v) Costs of this application be reserved; and
(vi) Such further or other relief as the Court considers appropriate, including a shorter fixed extension if the Court is not minded to grant the full period sought;
(b) CFI-039-2025/8 – the Claimant (or “ENBD”) applies for an Order that:
(i) D2's Application No. CFI-039-2025/7 dated 30 March 2026 (the “Extension Application”) shall be dismissed;
(ii) Unless by not later than 4pm on 10 April 2026, D2 does give disclosure of information as to his assets and swears and serves on the Claimant an affidavit setting out that information in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO, he shall not be permitted to advance any defence to the claims in Claim No. CFI-039-2025;
(iii) D2 shall pay the Claimant's costs of and occasioned by the Extension Application and the present application (a statement of costs has been filed on the eRegistry Portal separately);
(c) CFI-039-2025/9 D2 applies for an Order that:
(i) The Appellant’s Email, together with its attachment, shall stand as:
a. the Appellant’s Notice; and
b. the Appellant’s renewed application for permission to appeal pursuant to RDC 44.9 (the “Renewed Application”), and shall be treated as filed on 8 April 2026 (the “8 April 2026 Filing”);
(ii) The document attached to the Appellant’s Email shall stand as the Appellant’s grounds of appeal for the purposes of the Renewed Application, subject to any amendment permitted by this Order or further order. If so advised, the Appellant shall have permission to file amended grounds of appeal, whether by refinement, re-ordering, omission or limited supplementation of the grounds contained in the 8 April 2026 Filing, provided that any such amended grounds are filed in accordance with the below and do not disturb the deemed filing date directed by the above;
(iii) Further and in any event, to the extent that time for filing the Appellant’s Notice / Renewed Application had expired before any perfected filing pursuant to the below, time is extended under RDC 44.13 and/or RDC 4.2 to the date and time of that perfected filing, and that filing shall stand as filed in time;
(iv) Only to the extent necessary, the Appellant is granted relief from any sanction, adverse consequence or procedural prejudice said to arise solely by reason of the mode of filing, form of filing, or any procedural irregularity associated with the Appellant’s Email and the grounds attached to that email;
(v) By 4pm GST on 29 April 2026, the Appellant shall file and serve:
a. any amended grounds of appeal and/or skeleton argument on which he intends to rely pursuant to RDC 44.30; and
b. any documents required by RDC 44.32 and not already before the Court;
(vi) Pending determination of the Appellant’s Renewed Application and, if permission is granted, until further order of the Court of Appeal:
a. paragraphs 9 and 10 of the 18 March Order are stayed as against the Appellant; and
b. the 18 March Order shall not be enforced insofar as it concerns alleged non-compliance by the Appellant with paragraphs 9 and 10 of that Order;
(vii) Pending determination of the Appellant’s Renewed Application and, if permission is granted, until further order of the Court of Appeal, Application No. CFI-039-2025/8 (the “Unless Order Application”) shall not be determined;
(viii) Save as expressly varied by this Order, the 18 March Order shall remain in full force and effect as against the Appellant, including the freezing restraint;
(ix) Nothing in this Order determines or prejudices any separate application by the Appellant in the Court of First Instance to vary or discharge the 18 March Order;
(x) Liberty to apply;
(xi) Costs reserved.
3. The Notice of Appeal, attached to D2’s email, was filed on 14 April 2026 and set out the following proposed grounds of appeal:
(a) The Judge erred in law in holding that ENBD is a “Licensed DIFC Establishment” within Article 2 and Article 14(A)(1) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025.
(b) The Judge erred in law in holding, separately, that ENBD is a “DIFC Establishment” simpliciter, and in using Reasons [76]–[77] to answer the anomaly created by that construction.
(c) Further or alternatively, even if Article 14(A)(1) was engaged, the Judge erred in holding that there was no room to decline jurisdiction, including by failing to engage adequately with Article 14(C) as a coherent statutory declinature scheme.
(d) The Judge mischaracterised and failed to determine the service limb of D2’s Application No. CFI-039-2025/5.
(e) If and insofar as jurisdiction existed, the Judge erred and/or was wrong in concluding that ENBD had shown, as against D2 specifically, a sufficient good arguable case and sufficient respondent-specific basis for a finding of dissipation to justify the relief granted.
(f) If and insofar as jurisdiction existed, the Judge erred in principle and/or exercised his discretion wrongly in granting against D2 the worldwide freezing order and ancillary disclosure order in the form made.
(g) The Judge erred in principle and/or acted unfairly in relying on Fox 1 / Fox 2 without determining D2’s objections as to sworn status, lateness, composite use, and absence of the requisite procedural steps for each aspect.
(h) The Judge further erred in principle and/or case management by permitting reliance on the 5/6 March 2026 Fox 2 / JF2 materials, or at least by failing to rule on D2’s objections to their lateness and procedural non-compliance.
(i) The Judge erred in principle in making the costs order.
4. In addition, in the course of its oral submissions, ENBD applied for an Order (the “Further Disclosure Order”) that D2, shall, by 4pm GST on 20 April 2026:
(a) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all bank statements from 1 January 2020 to date within his possession or control (including any document accessible through online banking platforms) in relation to each of the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of D2's unsworn affidavit served on 10 April 2026 (the "Unsworn Affidavit");
(b) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all communications, invoices and ledgers from 1 September 2022 to date within his possession or control relating to the acquisition of metals and/or gemstones and/or jewellery referred to in Schedule D of the Unsworn Affidavit and the subsequent disposal thereof;
(c) Make a written request by email to UBS Switzerland AG and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank PJSC (copying in his last relationship managers in respect of those banks) for all bank statements for a period of 6 years to date or (if earlier) the date on which the relevant account was closed relating to the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of the Unsworn Affidavit for the above banks.
5. It was also noted that there was an error in the WFO and that paragraph 6(1)(i) should be deleted.
CFI-039-2025/7
6. The Extension Application is moot. It sought an extension of the time for compliance by D2 with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO until further order or 4pm GST on 10 April 2026. That time passed with no compliance. D2 purported to comply with an unsworn document on 10 April 2026. Leaving aside any question of the adequacy of its contents, the document was not an affidavit and therefore did not amount to compliance with the WFO.
7. The Extension Application must be dismissed with costs assessed on the indemnity basis. To pursue an application for an extension of time to comply with an order and then to fail to comply with the extended timeline justifies indemnity costs.
CFI-039-2025/8
8. ENBD is entitled to the “unless order” sought on the grounds of D2’s continuing failure to observe paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO. He raised a number of excuses for non- compliance including the weather, hostilities in the Gulf and changing his legal representatives. Frankly, against the background of the history set out in the Judgment (see in particular [129]-[168]), I am unimpressed.
9. I am willing to allow D2 one last chance to comply with the WFO by no later than 4pm GST on Monday, 20 April 2026.
10. ENBD is entitled to its costs of the Order seeking compliance with the WFO assessed on the indemnity basis.
CFI-039-2025/9
11. I shall allow the Application to the extent that the attachment to D2’s email (now filed on 14 April 2026) shall stand as the Appellant’s Notice and the Appellant’s Renewed Application pursuant to RDC 44.9, and shall be treated as filed on 8 April 2026.
12. Save as above, the Application is dismissed and the costs shall be costs in the proposed appeal.
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
13. The Appeal Notice as filed on 14 April 2026 states that D2 is applying for permission to appeal (“PTA”). RDC 44.16 provides that an application for PTA not made orally to the lower Court at the hearing will ordinarily be decided without an oral hearing. RDC 44.19 provides that PTA may only be given where the lower Court considers that (1) the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or (2) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. By RDC 44.21 if PTA is refused without an oral hearing, the parties will be notified of that decision and brief reasons for it.
14. While I did canvass PTA at the oral hearing on 14 April 2026, new counsel recently instructed on behalf of D2 said (and I accept) he was in no position to deal with the matter. I therefore treat the application for PTA as one made without an oral hearing and state my brief reasons for refusing PTA as follows – I consider that none of the proposed grounds of appeal enjoys a real prospect of success or discloses some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard:
(a) Grounds I and II – these are straightforward issues of statutory construction. As stated in the Judgment at [40] I found an air of complete unreality in the Defendants’ submissions. The Defendants also signally failed in their written submissions to address ENBD’s case that it is a DIFC Establishment even if it is not a Licensed DIFC Establishment for the purpose of the Courts Law [42]. In any event, PTA has already been refused [230]-[231];
(b) Ground III – D2’s case was contrary to clear DIFC authority binding upon me;
(c) Ground IV – I encountered some difficulty in understanding whether counsel for D2 was pursuing an order to set aside service in view of the fact it would be wholly inconsistent with the actions of D2 in serving an Acknowledgment of Service on 14 January 2026 out of time and seeking a retrospective extension of time for so doing and relief from sanctions. Further D2 was contesting jurisdiction or asking the Court to decline jurisdiction, each of which was inconsistent with a failure to effect service. Counsel did not contend, as now alleged in the proposed grounds in the appeal, that there was an outstanding filed application, but rather sought to make an oral application. If the Court were in error, it had been led into error by D2 as set out at [91] of the Judgment. It would in any event have made no difference to the outcome of the WFO as on the evidence I would have granted the WFO in advance of service;
(d) Grounds V and VI – these are proposed appeals on fact and discretion, in my view, without merit;
(e) Grounds VII and VIII – these were not matters pursued at the hearing;
(f) Ground IX – this is an appeal on discretion. Application CFI-039-2025/6 was granted enabling the Court to dismiss the jurisdiction challenge on the merits. Application CFI-039-2025/4 did carry no order as to costs but was not included in the costs Order.
THE FURTHER DISCLOSURE ORDER
15. Again, new counsel recently instructed on behalf of D2 said (and I accept) he was in no position to deal with the matter. I therefore treated the Application as being made ex parte. I will make the Order as sought, but as indicated, being ex parte D2 has the right to apply for discharge.
COSTS
16. ENBD filed a Statement of Costs on 6 April 2026 in relation to its costs of Application Nos. CFI-039-2025/7 and CFI-039-2025/8 to 6 April 2026. ENBD updated its costs incurred to 10 April 2026 as set out in the Second Witness Statement of Tarik Sharif dated 10 April 2026. On 15 April 2026 the Claimant filed an updated statement of costs covering the costs detailed as above plus the additional costs incurred after 10 April 2026, including the hearing. Accordingly, ENBD claimed costs of the Applications total USD 23,833.31.
17. By RDC 38.19 where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the indemnity basis, the Court will resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount in favour of the receiving party. The hourly rates used in the updated statement of costs fall well within Registrar’s Direction No. 1 Of 2023 – Indicative Hourly Legal Charges. I am willing to give the benefit of any doubt that I might entertain about the hours in relation to two quite straightforward Applications in favour of ENBD. I will therefore order that D2 pay ENBD its costs of Application Nos. CFI-039-2025/7 and CFI-039-2025/8 in the sum of USD 23,833.31.
DISPOSITION
18. Application CFI-039-2025/7 is dismissed.
19. Application CFI-039-2025/8 is granted - unless by not later than 4pm GST on 20 April 2026, D2 gives disclosure of information as to his assets and swears and serves on the Claimant an affidavit setting out that information in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the WFO, he shall not be permitted to advance any defence to the claims in Claim No. CFI-039-2025.
20. Application CFI-039-2025/9 is granted to the extent that the attachment to D2’s email (now filed on 14 April 2026) shall stand as the Appellant’s Notice and the Appellant’s Renewed Application pursuant to RDC 44.9, and shall be treated as filed on 8 April 2026. Otherwise, the Application is dismissed and the costs shall be costs in the proposed appeal.
21. D2 is refused PTA.
22. On the ex parte application of ENBD, D2, shall, by no later than 4pm GST on 20 April 2026:
(a) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all bank statements from 1 January 2020 to date within his possession or control (including any document accessible through online banking platforms) in relation to each of the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of the Second Defendant's unsworn affidavit served on 10 April 2026 (the "Unsworn Affidavit");
(b) Produce to the Claimant's solicitors all communications, invoices and ledgers from 1 September 2022 to date within his possession or control relating to the acquisition of metals and/or gemstones and/or jewellery referred to in Schedule D of the Unsworn Affidavit and the subsequent disposal thereof;
(c) Make a written request by email to UBS Switzerland AG and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank PJSC (copying in his last relationship managers in respect of those banks) for all bank statements for a period of 6 years to date or (if earlier) the date on which the relevant account was closed relating to the bank accounts referred to in Schedule C of the Unsworn Affidavit for the above banks;
(d) The costs of the Application are reserved.
23. The Orders on Application CFI-039-2025/8 and the Further Disclosure Order shall bear penal notices.
24. Paragraph 6(1) of the WFO shall be amended to read:
“(1) The property known as: Land/plot number 1999 in Wadi Al Safa 3 (Municipality number 600-7985);”
25. D2 shall pay ENBD’s costs of Application Nos. CFI-039-2025/7 and CFI-039-2025/8 in the sum of USD 23,833.31.
