November 25, 2025 Enforcement Orders
Claim No. ENF 185/2025
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
OSTIN
Judgment Creditor/Applicant
and
OLEDA
Judgment Debtor/Respondent
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON the Part 45 Order of H.E. Nassir Al Nasser dated 19 September 2025 (the “Part 45 Order”) and the Part 50 Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 23 September 2025 (the “Part 50 Order”)
AND UPON the Judgment Debtor’s Application No. ENF-185-2025/2 dated 3 October 2025, seeking to set aside the Part 45 Order and the Part 50 Order (the “Application”)
AND UPON a hearing having been held on 27 October 2025, at which the Judgment Creditor’s and the Judgment Debtor’s representatives were in attendance
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application is partially granted.
2. The Part 45 Order shall remain in effect.
3. The Part 50 Order shall be varied and limited to the Judgment Debtor’s assets within the DIFC.
4. The Judgment Creditor shall pay the Judgment Debtor 50% of its costs of the Application, namely, AED 68,337.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 25 November 2025
At: 3pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Judgment Creditor is Ostin , (the “Judgment Creditor”).
2. The Judgment Oleda (the “Judgment Debtor”).
3. By way of background, the Judgment Creditor filed an enforcement application with the DIFC Courts to enforce a Dubai Courts of First Instance Judgment (“Dubai CFI Judgment”) against the Judgment Debtor in the DIFC.
4. In line with the DIFC enforcement procedures, the DIFC Courts issued the Part 45 Order and Part 50 Order.
5. The Judgment Debtor filed its Application to set aside the Part 45 and 50 Orders. The Judgment Debtor submits that the ground of its Application is as follows:
(a) The Dubai CFI Judgment is inappropriate for enforcement.
(b) The DIFC Courts does not have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 31(4) of the Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 Concerning Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (the “Law”) to enforce the Dubai CFI Judgment against the Judgment Debtor in the DIFC.
(c) The enforcement of the Dubai CFI Judgment in circumstances where it had been obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement is contrary to the public policy of the DIFC.
(d) The Dubai CFI Judgment does not meet the requisite standard of finality.
(e) Permitting the enforcement of the Dubai CFI Judgment in the DIFC in the present case leads to a result that is manifestly absurd and unreasonable.
6. The Judgment Creditor on the other hand submits that the Application is procedurally defective, jurisdictionally misconceived and an abuse of process.
The Court’s power to set aside Part 45 and Part 50 orders is well-founded under the DIFC Rules
7. The Judgment Debtor submits that the Courts have the power to set aside Part 45 and Part 50 orders in accordance with the following Rules of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”):
(a) RDC 4.7 states “the power of the Court… to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order”. Thus, it expressly stated in the Rules that the Court’s power to grant the Part 45 and 50 Orders includes also the power to revoke the orders.
(b) Under RDC 4.2(14), the Court can also “take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective”. Thus, the Court’s express power to revoke the Part 45 and 50 Orders pursuant to RDC 4.7, is also undergirded by its general case management powers to set aside the orders under RDC 4.2(14).
(c) Under RDC 23(11) as explained in EFG v. Marj Holding, the Court also has the power to set aside ex parte orders which have been granted without full and frank disclosure by the party applying for the orders.
8. The Judgment Debtor submits that such powers may be exercised on grounds including, inter alia, lack of jurisdiction, a failure to provide full and frank disclosure at the time the orders were granted, contravention of DIFC public policy, lack of finality and other principles.
9. The Judgment Creditor adds that the enforcement orders are sealed and final, and only appeal to the DIFC Court of Appeal is allowed under Article 34 of the DIFC Courts Law which states "Subject to the provisions of Article (14) of this Law, the decisions of the Enforcement Judge may be applied directly to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the Rules of the Courts."
10. The Judgment Creditor submits that the Judgment Debtor missed the appeal deadlines, therefore, the Orders remain binding.
11. Before discussing the appropriate procedures relevant to RDC Parts 4 or 23 or an appeal under RDC Part 44, I shall first discuss the basis for the Judgment Debtor’s Application to set aside and whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside the Orders or not. If I am satisfied that there is a sufficient basis for the Application, I will discuss the appropriate procedure under the RDC.
The Part 45 and Part 50 Orders should be set aside because the Dubai CFI Judgment is inappropriate for enforcement
12. The Judgment Debtor submits that in order for the Dubai CFI Judgment to be enforced by the DIFC Courts, it must be appropriate for enforcement. Paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol of Enforcement between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Courts, expressly states that in order for “a judgment, award or order of the Dubai Courts” to be enforced “within the Dubai International Financial Centre Court’s Jurisdiction”, it “must be final and appropriate for enforcement”.
13. Therefore, the Judgment Debtor submits that the DIFC Court should set aside the Part 45 and Part 50 Orders because the Dubai CFI Judgment is inappropriate for enforcement in the DIFC in light of the reasons set out below.
The Judgment Creditor failed to provide full and frank disclosure to the Court
14. The Judgment Debtor submits that the Judgment Creditor had an obligation to provide full and frank disclosure to the Court at the time it filed its Part 45 and Part 50 applications. The Judgment Debtor adds that its failure constitutes a breach of its duty of full and frank disclosure.
15. The Judgment Creditor submits that on 2 July 2025, the Dubai Execution Judge affixed the executory formula to the judgment, a judicial act which conclusively certifies that the Dubai CFI Judgment is final and enforceable. By operation of law, the affixation of the executory formula signifies that the judicial decision is final and executory. Accordingly, the Judgment Debtor's suggestion to the contrary is untenable.
16. The DIFC Courts received the Dubai CFI Judgment with the executory formula, in which it is evident that the order is final and enforceable. Although the Judgment Creditor filed an ex parte application to enforce the Dubai CFI Judgment, there is no evidence before the Courts that the enforcement of the Dubai CFI Judgment is stayed subject to appeal.
17. The DIFC Courts will only stay the Dubai CFI Judgment enforcement proceedings in circumstances where it is presented with a stay of enforcement proceedings from Dubai Courts.
18. Therefore, the Judgment Debtor’s argument of full and frank disclosure is misplaced.
The Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 31(4) of the Law to enforce the Dubai CFI Judgment against the Judgment Debtor in the DIFC
19. The Judgment Debtor submits that the DIFC Courts does not have jurisdiction under Article 31(4) of the Law to enforce the Dubai CFI Judgment against the Judgment Debtor in the DIFC because the text in Article 31(4) interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning and against the context of Article 31(1) to (3) confirms that the DIFC Courts may only exercise enforcement jurisdiction over a Dubai Courts Judgment where the subject matter of enforcement is situated “inside the DIFC”.
20. The Judgment Creditor submits that Article 31 of the Law was deliberately drafted in broad terms and establishes a comprehensive statutory gateway that facilitates the recognition and execution of local or foreign judgments and arbitral awards within the UAE legal landscape and specifically empowers the DIFC Courts, in enforcement proceedings, to enforce local or foreign judgments and orders emanating from both the local Dubai Courts and foreign jurisdictions. Article 31(4) is a stand-alone gateway for the enforcement of both local and foreign judgments in the DIFC Courts and is not contingent upon either (a) the underlying claim having originated in the DIFC, or (b) the Judgment Debtor’s assets being situated within the DIFC. The Judgment Debtor’s allegation that the DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction to enforce the Dubai CFI Judgment, or to issue related orders such as the Part 50 Order, is entirely misconceived and rests on a self-serving and selective interpretation of Article 31 of the Law.
21. I believe that the Judgment Creditor misinterpreted Article 31(4), the DIFC Courts has the Jurisdiction to enforce judgments, orders and awards but limited to the subject matter being in the DIFC.
22. The DIFC Courts has the jurisdiction to issue a Part 50 Order and conduct a hearing, but this should only be limited to the assets in the DIFC. The enforcement proceeding of the Dubai CFI Judgment against the Judgment Debtor is established in Dubai Courts, and any request of information about the Judgment Debtor’s asset should be conducted in Dubai Courts and not the DIFC Courts, unless the Part 50 hearing is to gather information about the Judgment Debtor’s assets in the DIFC.
23. Therefore, the DIFC Courts has the jurisdiction to issue the Part 45 and Part 50 Orders subject to enforcement within the DIFC and for information related to assets within the DIFC. Any request of information about the assets of a company that are not in the DIFC shall be subject to the enforcement proceedings of the Courts where the assets are situated.
Permitting the enforcement of the Dubai CFI Judgment in circumstances where it had been obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement is contrary to the public policy of the DIFC
24. The DIFC Courts received the Dubai CFI Judgment with the affixation of the executory formula, therefore, the DIFC Courts has no jurisdiction to look into the merits of the case, but only to enforce the Judgment that is affixed with execution formula.
Conclusion
25. I believe that the discussion above is sufficient to establish the following:
(a) The DIFC Courts has jurisdiction to enforce Dubai CFI Judgment inside the DIFC.
(b) The Part 45 Order shall remain in effect.
(c) Part 50 Order shall be varied and limited to the Judgment Debtor assets within the DIFC.
26. Therefore, the Part 50 Order shall be varied in accordance with RDC 4.7.
Costs
27. I find that the Judgment Debtor was partially successful in its Application and shall be awarded 50% of its AED 136,674 costs as per the statement of cost, which is AED 68,337.
