Ravi P. Jawani February 4, 2026 In a further affirmation of the DIFC Courts’ pro-arbitration stance, the Court of First Instance in Om v. Ottilie (ARB 017/2025, judgment dated 28 October 2025) has confirmed that domicile, business activity, or the presence of assets in the DIFC are not statutory pre-conditions for the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The judgment reinforces the DIFC’s role as a leading international enforcement forum and aligns squarely with the UAE’s obligations under the New York Convention. Key Facts The Award Holder sought recognition and enforcement of a London-seated arbitral award before the DIFC Courts under Articles 42 and 43 of the DIFC Arbitration Law and Article 14(A)(5) of the DIFC Courts Law. The Award Debtor was a mainland Dubai entity, with no registration, business activity, or assets in the DIFC. Despite this, the DIFC Court granted recognition and enforcement of the award. The Award Debtor subsequently challenged the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction under Part 12 of the RDC. Jurisdictional Challenge The Award Debtor argued that: enforcing a foreign award against a mainland entity with no DIFC nexus violated UAE public policy; and the Award Holder’s reliance on the DIFC Courts’ conduit jurisdiction amounted to forum non conveniens. Procedural objections were also raised regarding the absence of an Arabic translation and alleged non-production of the original arbitration agreement. The Award Holder maintained that the DIFC Courts enjoy exclusive and unconditional jurisdiction to recognise arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law, irrespective of the parties’ domicile or asset location, and that the challenge was procedurally defective and time-barred. DIFC Court’s Findings The DIFC Court decisively rejected the jurisdictional challenge and held that: Article 14(A)(5) of the DIFC Courts Law, read with Articles 42–44 of the DIFC Arbitration Law, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the DIFC Courts to recognise arbitral awards. Recognition under Article 42(1) is subject only to the limited refusal grounds set out in Article 44. The recognition and enforcement process is mechanistic and non-adjudicative, with no reconsideration of the merits. Importantly, the Court confirmed that domicile, business activity, or the presence of assets in the DIFC are not jurisdictional requirements for recognition or enforcement. The Court also rejected public policy and forum non conveniens arguments, noting that recognition in the DIFC does not prejudice an award debtor’s rights before onshore courts. On procedural objections, the Court held that: formal requirements under Article 42(2) are intended to establish authenticity, not to impose rigid formalism; and where authenticity is not disputed and the award debtor participated in the arbitration, technical objections will not defeat recognition. The Court further emphasised that jurisdictional challenges must be raised promptly, failing which jurisdiction may be deemed accepted. Consistent Judicial Approach In a separate decision earlier this year, the DIFC Court of First Instance adopted the same reasoning, confirming that Article 14(A)(5) of the DIFC Courts Law imposes no territorial or asset-based limitation on jurisdiction. Provisions concerning execution and court cooperation were held to be administrative in nature and not jurisdictional bars. Takeaway These decisions further entrench the DIFC Courts as a reliable and arbitration-friendly enforcement hub, discouraging tactical jurisdictional challenges and promoting efficient enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Fichte & Co’s Partner Ravi Jawani and his team successfully represented the Award Holders in both matters, reinforcing the DIFC’s standing as a gateway for international arbitral enforcement.
