March 12, 2026 Enforcement Orders
Claim No. ENF 047/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
ODHRAN
Judgment Creditor/Appellant
and
ORALIA
Judgment Debtor/Respondent
AMENDED ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON the Judgment Creditor’s Appeal Notice dated 16 February 2026 (the “Appeal Notice”) seeking permission to appeal against the Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 28 January 2026 (the “Judgment Creditor’s Application for Permission to Appeal”)
AND UPON the Respondent’s submissions in opposition to the Appeal Notice dated 9 March 2026
AND UPON reviewing the case bundle
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Judgment Creditor’s Application for Permission to Appeal is granted.
2. Costs shall be costs in the case.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 12 March 2026
Date or re-issue:12 March 2026
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Judgment Creditor in this Claim, against the order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 28 January 2026 (the “Order”)
2. The background of this Claim does need not be repeated in the course of this decision.
3. In accordance with RDC 44.19, permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Appeal Notice filed by the Judgment Creditor, I find that the Appeal does meet the requirements under RDC 44.19. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. The Judgment Creditor submits 2 grounds on which its appeal is based on, which are the following:
(a) The Judge erred in law in holding that RDC Part 50 examinations are territorially confined to assets located within the DIFC by reason of Article 31(4) of Law No. 2 of 2025, whereas in fact Part 50 is an in-personam information-gathering power containing no such limitation. [Ground 1].
(b) The Judge erred in restricting permissible questioning to matters relating solely to assets in the DIFC, thereby wrongly excluding questions that may reveal assets or enforcement pathways within the DIFC. [Ground 2].
6. The Judgment Debtor opposes the permission on the basis that Ground 1 has no error and that there is no evidence that the Judgment Debtor has assets in the DIFC.
7. Therefore, in light of the submissions, I am of the view that there are compelling reasons for the Appeal to be heard, and therefore the Appeal does satisfy the requirements of RDC 44.19.
8. Costs shall be costs in the case.
