Three decisions of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts illustrate the questions that arise when a party seeks an anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration: whether the Court has jurisdiction, whether the agreement to arbitrate should be enforced, and whether the relief remains necessary.
Oran and Oaken v Oved, Oswin v Otila and Ondray, and Ohtli v Onora address different stages of that enquiry. Read together, they provide useful guidance for parties considering an application and those responding to an existing order.
Case 1: Oran and Oaken v Oved: distinguishing power from jurisdiction
In Oran and Oaken v Oved, CA 004/2025, the DIFC Court of Appeal clarified an important limit on the Court’s ability to grant anti-suit injunctions: the power to issue an injunction does not itself establish jurisdiction over the application.
The dispute arose from air ambulance services. Following the commencement of English proceedings, Oved initiated DIAC arbitration and obtained a DIFC anti-suit injunction. The arbitration clause referred to the DIFC-LCIA Rules but identified the seat as “Dubai, United Arab Emirates”. Whether that wording established a DIFC seat was disputed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
In its reasons published on 28 October 2025, the Court distinguished the statutory provisions authorizing injunctive relief from the legal basis permitting it to entertain a particular case. An applicant must establish both. The availability of an injunction cannot, by itself, bring a dispute within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Anti-suit injunctions protecting arbitration agreements require their own jurisdictional foundation. A DIFC seat provides such a basis under the DIFC Arbitration Law. Where the arbitration is seated elsewhere, another applicable jurisdictional gateway must be established. Describing the circumstances as unusual or exceptional cannot supply missing jurisdiction.
The Court discharged the injunction and upheld the jurisdictional objection.
The subsequent costs decision
In its costs decision of 8 December 2025, the Court rejected Oved’s argument that the appeal represented a change in the law warranting a reduction in recoverable costs. It reiterated that the provisions empowering the Court to grant injunctions operate within an established jurisdiction; they do not create unrestricted jurisdiction over any person or dispute. As a DIFC seat had not been sufficiently established and no alternative gateway was available, the injunction lacked the necessary jurisdictional foundation.
For applicants, the practical consequence is clear: identify the jurisdictional gateway at the outset and explain how the evidence satisfies it before addressing why anti-suit relief should be granted.
Case 2: Oswin v Otila and Ondray: enforcing the agreement to arbitrate
In Oswin v Otila and Ondray, ARB 032/2025, a dispute arose over the management of a joint venture operating a medical and hazardous waste facility. Oswin and Ondray held 49% and 51% respectively in Otila, the joint venture company. The parties’ inability to satisfy the agreed decision-making thresholds resulted in deadlock.
The joint venture agreement expressly provided for DIFC-seated arbitration. Its Abu Dhabi court jurisdiction clause was subject to the arbitration provisions. In September 2025, the DIFC Court upheld its supervisory jurisdiction and continued an interim injunction preserving the management arrangements pending determination by the tribunal or further court order.
The anti-suit injunction
Ondray nevertheless pursued Abu Dhabi proceedings seeking relief concerning the facility’s management and access to information. Oswin applied for an anti-suit injunction.
The Court explained that such an injunction binds the party that agreed to arbitrate; it does not instruct another court how to exercise its jurisdiction. Where the parties have selected a DIFC seat, the Court will enforce their arbitration agreement unless good or strong reasons justify a different course. The applicant need not separately establish that the competing proceedings are vexatious or oppressive.
The Defendants failed to establish such reasons. The earlier jurisdiction ruling remained binding unless reversed, and requests for documents and protective measures could be addressed within the DIAC arbitration, including through an emergency arbitrator where appropriate.
The order made on 20 October 2025 required the Defendants to discontinue the specified Abu Dhabi proceedings and prohibited further steps other than discontinuance.
Case 3: Ohtli v Onora: whether relief remains necessary
In Ohtli v Onora, ARB 034/2025, the parties’ trading terms provided for DIAC arbitration seated in the DIFC. Ohtli obtained an interim anti-suit injunction after Onora commenced Dubai onshore proceedings. By the return hearing, those proceedings were no longer being pursued and the dispute was progressing through arbitration.
The Court’s decision
Ohtli sought final relief, relying on the earlier breach of the arbitration agreement and the risk of further litigation. The Court found insufficient justification for continuing the injunction: there were no existing proceedings to restrain, and arbitration was underway.
On 19 December 2025, the Court refused final relief, discharged the injunction and awarded Onora its costs of the set-aside application on the standard basis.
Practical consequence
Applicants must reassess the need for relief as circumstances change. At the return hearing, they should identify the conduct still requiring restraint and provide evidence of any risk of renewed proceedings. An earlier breach alone may not justify maintaining an injunction, and pursuing unnecessary relief may expose the applicant to adverse costs.
For advice on anti-suit injunctions, enforcing arbitration agreements and interim relief before the DIFC Courts, please reach out to Merline Dsouza at merline@alsuwaidi.ae