backTwo recent decisions have shed important light on how jurisdiction is established in the courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC”) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (the “ADGM”), respectively.
The first, issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance (“DIFC Court”), examined the jurisdictional requirements for the grant of interim relief in support of foreign arbitral proceedings. The second, delivered by the General Assembly of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (“Court of Cassation”), addressed the proper allocation of jurisdiction between the ADGM Court and the onshore Abu Dhabi judicial system.
Though arising in different contexts, both rulings underscore a common theme, jurisdiction is a threshold question, and parties which fail to establish the requisite connection to the DIFC or ADGM cannot assume that its courts will be available to them.
The DIFC Court Decision: Orabelle v Orzenia
Factual Background
The claimant, Orabelle, is a UAE-incorporated investment solutions provider operating in the hospitality and property sector. The respondent, Orzenia, is an entity registered in the Cayman Islands. The parties’ relationship was governed by an asset management agreement executed in 2015. The claimant alleged that, in November 2025, the respondent had taken unilateral steps to terminate the agreement and had revoked the claimant’s access to systems, premises, and banking facilities, including a bank account held in onshore Dubai. The claimant contended that these actions amounted to early termination, thereby entitling it to a termination indemnity and unpaid management fees.
Rather than commencing arbitration immediately – the agreement provided for Paris-seated arbitration – the claimant sought urgent interim relief from the DIFC Court. The application, made on an ex parte basis, sought a worldwide freezing order restraining the respondent from dealing with assets totaling over USD 8 million, together with an asset disclosure order (“Application”). The claimant relied principally upon Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, which makes provision for precautionary measures in connection with arbitral proceedings brought outside the DIFC, as well as the interim remedies regime set out in Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Court.
Decision and Court’s Reasoning
In the decision of the DIFC Court delivered on 21 January 2026 (the “DIFC Decision”), Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi identified jurisdiction as the threshold issue that had to be resolved before the substantive merits of the Application could be considered. The DIFC Court emphasised that even in cases of genuine urgency, it was incumbent upon an applicant to establish that the court possessed jurisdiction in the first place; that question could not simply be deferred to a later date on the basis of the urgency or necessity of relief.
The claimant relied principally on Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, which provides for interim measures in relation to “applications, claims, or current or future arbitral proceedings brought outside the DIFC seeking suitable precautionary measures within the DIFC”. Whilst the DIFC Court accepted that “future arbitral proceedings” could extend the DIFC Court’s powers to circumstances in which arbitral proceedings have not formally been commenced, it held that this wording did not remove the need for the DIFC Court to satisfy itself of the crucial statutory requirement established by the phrasing “within the DIFC”.1DIFC Decision at [25].
In this vein, it was the absence of any identifiable assets within the DIFC which proved decisive.2 DIFC Decision at [33]-[36]. The apparent lack of any assets held by the respondent within the DIFC was even accepted by the claimant in its oral submissions before the DIFC Court. The only specifically identified UAE asset was a bank account located in onshore Dubai, outside the DIFC. Orabelle sought to argue that “within the DIFC” could be interpreted to mean simply that the court issuing the order is physically located within the DIFC, but the DIFC Court rejected this submission, holding that there needed to exist a genuine and substantive nexus between the DIFC and the specific relief being sought.3DIFC Decision at [27]-[28].
The DIFC Court noted that the application sought a worldwide freezing order in circumstances where the Orabelle could not identify any assets within the DIFC, and held that the relief sought was, in substance, directed at assets outside the DIFC. Justice Al Sawalehi raised concerns regarding what he described as a potential “forum shopping” exercise, noting that the combination of a worldwide disclosure order, the absence of any identified DIFC assets, and a jurisdictional gateway requiring measures “within the DIFC” reinforced the conclusion that the Application was not properly anchored to the DIFC.4DIFC Decision at [37]-[38]. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed in its entirety.
The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Decision
Factual Background
The second decision was handed down on 1 April 2026 by the Court of Cassation. This ruling addressed a different but equally significant jurisdictional problem, namely the inconsistency that had developed in prior case law concerning the circumstances in which the ADGM Court has jurisdiction. Prior to the decision, two conflicting approaches had emerged: under the first, jurisdiction turned on whether a company’s headquarters was physically located within the ADGM; under the second, the establishment of jurisdiction was dependent upon whether the relevant entity was formally licensed or registered with the ADGM authorities. The resulting uncertainty had created real difficulties for businesses, investors, and legal practitioners, particularly in cross-border transactions involving both onshore and offshore elements.
Decision and Court’s Reasoning
The decision of the Court of Cassation (the “Court of Cassation Decision”) was rooted in its analysis of Article 13 of Law No. 4 of 2013 concerning the ADGM (as amended by Law No. 12 of 2020), the principal statutory provision governing the jurisdiction of the ADGM Court. The Court of Cassation confirmed that the jurisdictional gateways set out in that provision – disputes involving ADGM authorities, disputes arising from contracts executed or performed within the ADGM, events occurring within ADGM territory, and related categories – are of equal and independent standing, meaning that satisfaction of any single gateway is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Crucially, the Court of Cassation rejected a purely geographical test for jurisdiction. Whilst acknowledging Cabinet Resolution No. 41 of 2023, which expanded the ADGM’s territorial scope to include Al Reem Island, the Court held that physical presence within the ADGM is not, in its own right, sufficient to engage the ADGM Court’s jurisdiction. Instead, the Court of Cassation adopted a regulatory compliance standard: jurisdiction exists where the relevant entity is duly licensed or registered with the ADGM authorities.
The Court of Cassation also addressed the treatment of bank guarantees, distinguishing between disputes concerning the underlying contract (where jurisdiction may lie with the ADGM Court if the contract was performed within the ADGM) and disputes between the beneficiary and the issuing bank (where the guarantee is treated as an independent instrument and jurisdiction ordinarily falls to the onshore courts).
Finally, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the principle of party autonomy, confirming that parties may agree in writing to submit their disputes to the ADGM Court, to arbitration seated in the ADGM, or to another competent court, regardless of whether they have any prior connection to the ADGM.
Implications
Taken together, the decisions have several important implications for parties operating in the UAE:
- Firstly, both decisions reaffirm that jurisdiction is a threshold requirement of the utmost importance. In the DIFC, the DIFC Court made clear that the urgency of an application does not excuse a failure to establish a proper jurisdictional foundation, and that wide-ranging remedial powers cannot compensate for the absence of a statutory gateway. In the context of the ADGM, the Court of Cassation has eliminated the uncertainty caused by conflicting lower court decisions and established a clear, rule-based framework.
- Secondly, and relatedly, the DIFC Decision cements the evidential thresholds for establishing the necessary nexus to found jurisdiction. Any claimant seeking interim arbitral relief from the DIFC Court must adduce sufficient evidence to enable the DIFC Court to satisfy itself that any connection to the DIFC is demonstrable. This is so even if the relief sought is global in character – in other words, it is not enough for a claimant simply to establish that either the dispute itself or the locations of particular assets are international.
- Thirdly, the Court of Cassation Decision clarifies that regulatory compliance, rather than geographical presence, is the touchstone for jurisdiction when it comes to corporate parties. Nonetheless, in line with the principle of party autonomy, entities with no connection to the ADGM may still validly opt into its jurisdiction by agreement.
- Fourthly, more broadly, parties are advised to draft jurisdiction clauses with care, ensuring that the chosen forum is clearly identified. A well-drafted jurisdiction clause is critical in any cross-border dispute, and these decisions serve as a reminder that imprecise or ill-considered drafting can leave parties unable to access the forum they assumed would be available to them.
- Finally, these decisions carry broader implications for the UAE’s position as a leading dispute resolution hub. By affirming clear jurisdictional boundaries, they enhance the predictability of the DIFC and ADGM court systems, which are essential to the confidence of court users in the system.
Additional Contributors: Jonathan Green