DIFC court confirms supervisory role in DIFC-seated arbitration (DIFC Court of First Instance)

This update was originally published on Practical Law Arbitration on 10 November 2025 and is reproduced with the permission of Thomson Reuters.

In Oswin v Otila and another [2025] DIFC ARB 032, the DIFC Court of First Instance continued an injunction granted to maintain the status quo in a joint venture dispute, pending resolution by a DIFC-seated arbitral tribunal. The court rejected arguments that the injunction should be set aside as the Abu Dhabi courts had jurisdiction and emphasised that, where the parties select a DIFC seat, the DIFC courts have jurisdiction to supervise that arbitration, including granting interim measures in support of it.

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance (CFI) has continued an injunction granted in support of a DIFC-seated arbitration, reinforcing its jurisdiction to grant supportive interim measures. The court emphasised its supervisory powers over arbitrations and clarified the interplay between DIFC law and UAE federal and local law.

The dispute arose from a 2019 joint venture agreement (JVA) concerning a medical and hazardous waste facility and involved a deadlock between the two shareholders, Oswin (49%) and Otila (51%). Oswin alleged that another party, Ondray, had taken certain unilateral actions and applied to the CFI for a without notice injunction to maintain the status quo pending DIFC-seated arbitration.

The CFI initially granted that injunction, recognising the risk of irreparable harm if Oswin were prevented from continuing operations. At the return date, Ondray sought to set aside the injunction, arguing that, under the JVA and UAE law, the courts of Abu Dhabi had exclusive jurisdiction.

Oswin relied on the JVA's arbitration clause, which provided for DIFC-seated arbitration under the DIFC-LCIA Rules, with the proceedings in English. Ondray pointed to a sub-clause in the JVA, which granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Abu Dhabi courts. It argued that this displaced the DIFC courts' authority to grant interim relief.

Rejecting that interpretation and continued injunction pending the tribunal's determination of the dispute, HE Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke held that the arbitration agreement was valid, governed by DIFC law and independent of the main contract. The reference to Abu Dhabi courts was "subject to" the arbitration provisions and could not override them. By choosing the DIFC as the seat, the parties had conferred supervisory jurisdiction on the DIFC courts. Therefore, federal law arguments concerning local jurisdiction were irrelevant.

Ondray was ordered to pay the claimant's costs.

The CFI's decision confirms that, where parties designate the DIFC as the seat of arbitration, the DIFC courts have jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration and to supervise the process, notwithstanding competing jurisdiction clauses in the main body of the contract or local law objections. It reinforces the strength of DIFC arbitration agreements and the importance of precise drafting in multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses.

Case: Oswin v Otila and another [2025] DIFC ARB 032 (16 September 2025). (This judgment has only recently become available.)