Claim No: ENF 216/2026

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

PEDRO

Judgment Creditor/Respondent

and

PIERCE

Judgment Debtor/Applicant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

UPON the Judgment Creditor’s Application dated 19 June 2026 seeking enforcement of the Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 16 March 2026 in ARB-008-2026, including the affixing of the executory formula and the issuance of a deputisation and/or execution letter pursuant to RDC Part 45 and Article 7(3)(a) of the Judicial Authority Law

AND UPON the Judgment Debtor’s Application Notice No. ENF-216-2026/1 dated 24 June 2026 seeking a stay of enforcement, suspension of further enforcement measures, clarification of the Judgment Creditor’s identity, standing and enforcement entitlement, disclosure of enforcement components, and preservation of the status quo pending appeal and related proceedings (“Application No. ENF-216-2026/1”)

AND UPON the Judgment Creditor’s Response dated 13 July 2026 opposing Application No. ENF-216-2026/1

AND UPON the Judgment Debtor’s Application Notice No. ENF-216-2026/2 dated 28 July 2026 and accompanying Reply to the Judgment Creditor’s Response dated 13 July 2026

AND UPON the Judgment Debtor’s Certificate of Service issued on 3 August 2026 confirming service of Application No. ENF-216-2026/2 and its supporting materials on 28 July 2026

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Application No. ENF-216-2026/1 is dismissed.

2. Application No. ENF-216-2026/2 is dismissed to the extent that it seeks any separate or further relief.

3. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of Application No. ENF-216-2026/1 to be assessed by the Court on the standard basis if not agreed.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 13 August 2026
At: 11am

1. This is the Court’s determination of the application by Pierce (“Pierce”), for a stay of enforcement and related protective relief in Claim No. ENF-216-2026.

2. Pierce is the Judgment Debtor in the enforcement claim and the applicant for the purposes of the present applications. In these Reasons, Pierce is referred to as the “Applicant”. Pedro is the Judgment Creditor in the enforcement claim and the respondent to the present applications. In these Reasons, Pedro is referred to as the “Respondent”.

3. The Applicant seeks to stay enforcement of the Final Award and to restrain further enforcement steps pending the determination of issues said to concern identity, standing, authority, procedural integrity, material non-disclosure, the contractual framework and the composition of the enforcement sum.

4. The Respondent opposes the application. It submits that the Enforcement Order remains final and enforceable and that the present application is an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

The Relief Sought

5. The Applicant respectfully seeks the following relief:

Background and Procedural History

6. The present enforcement proceedings arise out of a DIAC Arbitration and related DIFC proceedings, including ARB-008-2026. The underlying dispute concerns a Sub- Contract.

7. The Sub-Contract identifies the main contracting entity as Pierce– Abu Dhabi Branch. The Abu Dhabi Court proceedings concerning the same underlying dispute also named the Abu Dhabi Branch.

8. During the arbitral and subsequent DIFC proceedings, different descriptions of the Pedro entity appeared, including Pedro and Pedro –Abu Dhabi Branch. The Applicant submits that this is not merely a question of nomenclature but a question of legal identity, capacity, standing and enforcement entitlement.

9. The Final Award was issued on 5 December 2025. ARB-008-2026 was thereafter commenced for recognition and enforcement of the Final Award. On 16 March 2026, the Courts issued the Enforcement Order recognising the Final Award and granting leave to enforce it. By Order with Reasons dated 16 June 2026, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dismissed the Applicant’s three applications in ARB-008-2026. The present enforcement claim, ENF-216-2026, was then filed on 19 June 2026 seeking enforcement of the Enforcement Order outside the DIFC, including the affixing of the executory formula and the issuance of a deputisation and/or execution letter.

Issues for determination

10. The Applicant submits that the following issues arise for the Court’s consideration on this application:

The Applicant’s Submissions

11. The Applicant submits that enforcement should be stayed because it is pursuing appellate and related remedies concerning ARB-008-2026 and relies upon APP-005- 2026, which raises issues of newly discovered evidence, authority, standing, applicant identity, contractual framework, material non-disclosure and record integrity.

12. Those issues are not peripheral. They go to whether the Respondent is the correct legal entity entitled to enforce, whether the award and related orders were obtained and pursued on the basis of a complete procedural record, and whether enforcement should proceed before the Court has full clarity on the matters now raised.

13. The Applicant submits that the appeal or application for permission to appeal and related proceedings are genuine and arguable. A stay is therefore necessary to prevent enforcement from overtaking the determination of issues that may materially affect enforcement entitlement and fairness.

IDENTITY, STANDING, CAPACITY AND AUTHORITY

14. The Applicant submits that serious questions arise concerning the identity, standing, legal capacity and authority of the entity presently seeking enforcement.

15. The Sub-Contract and Abu Dhabi Court proceedings identify Pedro – Abu Dhabi Branch. By contrast, different descriptions appear in the arbitration, enforcement and related DIFC proceedings, including Pedro without reference to the Abu Dhabi Branch.

16. The Applicant submits that these differences require clarification because they may affect the identity of the party that entered into the Sub-Contract, the party named in the Abu Dhabi proceedings, the party that pursued the arbitration, the party that obtained the Final Award and the party presently seeking enforcement.

17. The authority materials also require scrutiny. The record refers to powers of attorney associated with different licence numbers and different entity descriptions. The first presently identified power of attorney executed by the Abu Dhabi Branch in favour of Eversheds appears to post-date material stages of the DIFC proceedings and the Final Costs Certificate. That chronology raises a legitimate question as to the authority relied upon at the material time.

18. The Applicant accordingly seeks disclosure of the relevant trade licences, corporate authorisations, powers of attorney, management approvals, board resolutions or equivalent authority documents identifying the granting entity, the authorised representative, the scope of authority, the date of authority and the proceedings to which such authority relates.

Abu Dhabi Proceedings and Material Non-disclosure

19. The Applicant submits that substantial questions arise as to whether the complete procedural history of the Abu Dhabi Court proceedings was fully presented during the arbitral and enforcement proceedings.

20. Particular significance attaches to subsequent Abu Dhabi Court developments, including later judgments, appellate proceedings, execution proceedings, payment developments, closure of execution proceedings and decisions concerning the enforceability of the Emergency Arbitrator’s Order and related relief.

21. These matters may be material to jurisdiction, finality, res judicata, damages, enforcement and the relationship between the Abu Dhabi Court proceedings and the arbitral proceedings. The Applicant submits that enforcement should not proceed until the Court is satisfied that the relevant procedural history has been fairly and completely presented.

Contractual Framework

22. The Applicant further relies upon the contractual framework. Clause 10.0 of the Sub- Contract provides that the contractual documents shall be deemed to form and be read and construed as the whole Sub-Contract Agreement, with no special priority applying to any one document or group of documents save as required by law.

23. Clauses 10.2 and 10.3 incorporate the Main Contract Terms and Conditions and Main Contract Documents. The incorporated provisions include Clauses 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 concerning Abu Dhabi Court jurisdiction and governing law.

24. The Applicant does not submit that these provisions alone determine the outcome of the jurisdictional issues. Rather, the submission is that the contractual framework required consideration as a whole and was materially more complex than reliance upon the arbitration clause in isolation.

25. The Applicant submits that this contractual issue is relevant to the enforcement application because the Final Award and related enforcement measures include consequences said to arise from the Abu Dhabi proceedings and alleged breach of the arbitration agreement.

The AED 9,831,371.75 Component

26. The Applicant submits that the largest component of the Final Award consists of AED 9,831,371.75 and appears to be connected with monies recovered through Abu Dhabi Court judgments and execution proceedings.

27. The legal character of that component requires clarification. The Respondent should identify whether it is said to represent restitution, repayment, reimbursement, damages, compensation or some other form of recovery. The relationship between that component and the legal effect of the Abu Dhabi Court judgments should be examined before enforcement proceeds.

28. Without such disclosure, the Applicant is unable to ascertain whether the enforcement sum includes sums that overlap with or arise from matters previously determined, paid or executed through the Abu Dhabi Courts.

Risk of Conflicting Legal Effects

29. The Applicant submits that permitting enforcement to proceed now creates a real risk of conflicting legal effects, inconsistent outcomes and overlapping determinations.

30. That risk is particularly acute where the Final Award includes a substantial component connected with Abu Dhabi Court judgments and execution proceedings, and where unresolved issues remain concerning identity, standing, authority, procedural completeness and contractual interpretation.

31. A stay will preserve the status quo, avoid premature enforcement and allow the Court to determine the relevant issues on a proper evidential basis. The prejudice to the Applicant if enforcement proceeds prematurely is substantial. The prejudice to the Respondent if enforcement is briefly stayed pending clarification is comparatively limited and can be addressed by appropriate case management directions.

The Respondent’s Response

32. The Respondent opposes the Application and submits that it should be dismissed in its entirety. The Respondent characterises the Application as frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merit, and seeks its costs on an indemnity basis.

33. The Respondent relies upon the Enforcement Order dated 16 March 2026 in ARB-008- 2026, by which the Final Award was recognised and leave to enforce was granted. The Respondent notes that the Enforcement Order recognised sums including AED 9,831,371.75 with simple interest at 5% from 28 December 2023, together with further sums and interest as set out in that Order.

34. The Respondent further relies upon the Order with Reasons dated 16 June 2026, by which the Defendant’s three applications in ARB-008-2026 were dismissed and the Enforcement Order was made final.

35. The Respondent relies on RDC 44.5 and RDC 44.10 and submits that any application for permission to appeal against the 16 June 2026 Order was required to be made within 21 days of that decision. The Respondent further relies on RDC 44.4 and submits that, in any event, an appeal would not operate as a stay unless ordered by the lower Court or the appeal Court.

36. On that basis, the Respondent submits that there is no impediment to further enforcement steps under RDC Part 45 and that the Application should be dismissed without the need for further determination of the substantive grounds advanced by the Applicant.

37. The Respondent also contends that the Application is an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined in the DIAC Case and ARB-008-2026. In particular, the Respondent relies upon findings in the 16 June 2026 Order that the Defendant’s arguments concerning enforceability, integrity, non-disclosure and conflicting final judgments did not meet the essential point, and that there was no merit in the point concerning the identity of the Respondent.

38. The Respondent further submits that the allegations of non-disclosure relating to the Abu Dhabi proceedings were addressed in the arbitration and in ARB-008-2026, and that Grounds 5 to 8 of the Application concern issues already determined within the arbitration and/or enforcement proceedings. The Respondent therefore characterises the Application as a backdoor appeal against matters that have been fully and finally determined.

39. The Applicant maintains, however, that the present Application does not seek to relitigate the merits of the Final Award. The Applicant’s position is that the stay application raises distinct enforcement-stage questions concerning whether enforcement should proceed before the Court is satisfied as to identity, standing, authority, the composition of the enforcement sum, the effect of the Abu Dhabi proceedings and the risk of conflicting legal effects.

Findings

40. Having considered the Applicant’s submissions and the Respondent’s response, the Court is not satisfied that the Applicant has established a proper basis for staying enforcement at this stage.

41. The starting point is the Enforcement Order dated 16 March 2026, by which the Final Award was recognised and leave to enforce was granted. That order has not been set aside. The Applicant’s applications in ARB-008-2026 were dismissed by the Order with Reasons dated 16 June 2026, and the Enforcement Order therefore remains operative.

42. The Court accepts that, if the Applicant wished to challenge the Order with Reasons dated 16 June 2026, the proper course was to seek permission to appeal pursuant to RDC Part 44. The Applicant has placed before the Court materials indicating that an Appeal Notice was submitted, that the appeal fee was paid, and that a Court-issued Appeal Notice was subsequently issued on 9 July 2026.

43. However, even assuming in the Applicant’s favour that permission to appeal has been sought, an appeal does not operate as a stay unless the lower Court or the appeal Court orders otherwise. No such stay order has been identified. The existence of an appeal or application for permission to appeal is therefore insufficient, without more, to justify restraining enforcement of an order which presently stands.

44. The Applicant also seeks directions arising from what it characterises as a materially inaccurate procedural statement in the Judgment Creditor’s Response concerning the status of the appeal. I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to direct a separate verified explanation for the purposes of determining the present stay application. The Court proceeds on the basis most favourable to the Applicant, namely that an Appeal Notice was submitted and subsequently issued. That does not alter the decisive point that no stay has been ordered.

45. The Court has also considered the Applicant’s complaints concerning identity, standing, authority, the Abu Dhabi proceedings, alleged material non-disclosure, the contractual framework and the AED 9,831,371.75 component of the Final Award. Those matters are framed as enforcement-stage concerns. However, on the material presently before the Court, they substantially overlap with matters that were or could have been advanced in the arbitration, in ARB-008-2026, or by way of appeal from the Order dated 16 June 2026.

46. The Court is not persuaded that the Applicant may use the present stay application to reopen or reargue issues that have already been addressed, or which properly belong to the appeal process. A stay application is not a substitute for a timely appeal, nor is it a collateral mechanism for revisiting matters already determined.

47. The Court further finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient risk of injustice if enforcement is permitted to proceed. The Applicant has identified issues on which it seeks clarification, but it has not established that those issues presently displace the final and enforceable character of the Enforcement Order.

48. In weighing the competing submissions, the Court is satisfied that the balance of justice lies in permitting enforcement to continue.

49. The application for a stay of enforcement is therefore dismissed.

Conclusion

50. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to the Court’s findings, Application No. ENF-216-2026/1 is dismissed. Application No. ENF-216-2026/2 is dismissed to the extent that it seeks any separate or further relief.

51. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of Application No. ENF-216-2026/1, to be assessed by the Court on the standard basis if not agreed.