The DIFC Court of Appeal has given an important judgment in Nael v Niamh Bank [2024] DIFC CA 015 (9 January 2025) on:
- the public policy ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an award under the DIFC Arbitration Law; and, in particular
- the circumstances in which an allegedly conflicting order or judgment of another UAE court might provide a ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an award in the DIFC.
The judgment is likely to be of interest to arbitration practitioners as an exploration of a relatively under-explored aspect of the international jurisprudence on the public policy defence to enforcement.
The proceedings also featured an earlier judgment in which the DIFC Court had rejected the Bank’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court to recognise and enforce the award on the grounds that the award was not an award for the purposes of Articles 42 and 43 of the DIFC Arbitration Law because the abolition of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre meant that the award was not authenticated by the Registrar of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre as a DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre award.
The lead judgment of the DIFC Court of Appeal was given by Justice Michael Black KC, with whom Chief Justice Wayne Martin and Justice Andrew Moran agreed.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Tom Stewart Coats acted for the Appellant (anonymised as Niamh Bank in the judgment). He was instructed by HFW Middle East LLP.
Arshad Ghaffar acted for the Claimant/Respondent at first instance, instructed by Primecase.
