DIFC court refuses to annul arbitration award and rejects objections to enforcement (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 Obert and another v Ondray [2025] DIFC CFI DARB 014, the DIFC Court of First Instance rejected an application to annul and refuse enforcement of an arbitral award. The court held that the sole arbitrator had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the award debtor’s procedural objections were unfounded. The court also emphasised that public policy objections cannot be invoked merely because a party disagrees with a tribunal’s decision and are instead restricted to breaches of the UAE’s most fundamental legal or moral principles.

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance (CFI) has granted an application to recognise and enforce a final arbitration award, reaffirming the DIFC Courts’ pro-enforcement approach to arbitral awards and the limited circumstances in which annulment may be sought under the DIFC Arbitration Law.

The dispute arose from a consultancy agreement (CA) concerning the development of a security token offering. Following termination, the parties executed a termination and settlement agreement (TSA), under which the defendant agreed to pay EUR50,000 to the claimants. However, payment was not made, and the claimants commenced arbitration, relying on the CA’s arbitration clause. The sole arbitrator issued a final award in the claimants’ favour, which they sought to have recognised and enforced.

The defendant opposed recognition, arguing that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction because the claims were pursued under the CA, which contained an arbitration clause, while the claimants’ demands were based on the TSA, which did not. The defendant also raised procedural and public policy objections under article 41 of the DIFC Arbitration Law, as well as procedural challenges under the DIFC courts’ Rules of Court (RDC).

Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi rejected these objections, emphasising that annulment of an arbitral award is exceptional and limited to the grounds enumerated in article 41(2). The court held that the arbitration clause in the CA survived termination and provided a valid jurisdictional basis for the arbitration. The arbitrator’s reliance on the arbitration agreement was consistent with the executed deed of arbitration (DOA), which was signed by all parties.

On procedural fairness, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim of "surprise" regarding the arbitrator’s reliance on the CA, noting that the arbitration clause had been pleaded as the foundation of jurisdiction from the outset and was confirmed in the DOA. The court held that the arbitrator was entitled to treat the TSA solely as evidence for quantifying the award, without relying on it as a source of jurisdiction. Regarding public policy, the court reiterated that annulment is restricted to breaches of the UAE’s most fundamental legal or moral principles and cannot be invoked merely because a party disagrees with a tribunal’s decision.

The decision underscores the DIFC courts’ commitment to upholding arbitration agreements and awards, reinforcing an approach of minimal curial intervention.

Case: Obert and another v Ondray [2025] DIFC CFI DARB 014 (9 October 2025). (This judgment has only recently become available.)