In Brief:
- On 11 March 2026, H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke handed down a significant judgment in ENF-271/2025, which is yet to be published (the “Proceedings”). The judgment provides clarity on the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to enforce foreign judgments under the new DIFC Courts Law, DIFC Law No. 2 of 2025 (the “DIFC Courts Law”).
- Hadef & Partners represented the Claimant in the Proceedings. The dispute concerned the enforcement of financial remedy orders issued by the English Court against the Defendant, which required the Defendant to sell a property located in onshore Dubai (the “Dubai Property”) and to pay certain sums to the Claimant from the proceeds of sale. The Defendant failed to comply.
- The Court dismissed the Defendant’s application to set aside an Enforcement Order and a Receivership Order, both of which Hadef & Partners had successfully obtained on an ex parte basis. In doing so, the Court firmly rejected the argument that the presence of assets within the DIFC is a prerequisite for the Court’s enforcement jurisdiction.
The Claimant obtained financial remedy orders against the Defendant from the London Family Court (the “English Court”) on 22 August 2024, following divorce proceedings between the parties. The English Court ordered the Defendant to sell the Dubai Property and to pay certain sums to the Claimant from the proceeds of the sale. The Defendant failed to comply with those orders and had taken steps to deal with the Dubai Property to the detriment of the Claimant.
Faced with the Defendant’s continued non-compliance and the risk of dissipation of assets, the Claimant sought the assistance of the DIFC Courts to recognise and enforce the English Court orders.
The Proceedings
Hadef & Partners, acting for the Claimant, successfully obtained two key orders on an ex-parte basis:
- The Enforcement Order: granted on 14 November 2025, recognising and declaring the English Court orders enforceable in the same manner as a DIFC Court judgment; and
- The Receivership Order: granted on 3 December 2025, appointing a receiver over the Defendant’s assets by way of equitable execution.
(collectively, the “Orders”)
The Defendant subsequently filed an application seeking to set aside the Orders. The application was heard on 10 March 2026 before H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke.
The Defendant’s case
The Defendant sought to set aside the Orders on four grounds, two of which were not pursued at the hearing, following unfavorable indications from the Court. These arguments relate to alleged failures of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte applications and public policy arguments relating to allegations concerning the validity of the parties’ marriage. The Court held that these matters had already been addressed by the English Court and were therefore effectively res judicata.
The Defendant’s principal argument concerned jurisdiction. The Defendant argued that the Dubai Property, which was the subject of the English Court’s orders, is located outside the DIFC, and therefore the English Court judgments were not capable of enforcement within the DIFC. Relying on Article 31.4 of the DIFC Courts Law, the Defendant submitted that the provision must be interpreted in the context of the wider provisions of Article 31, including the terms of Article 14(C)(2) and Article 15. The Defendant contended that the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgments is conditional upon the Defendant having assets located within the DIFC. In support of this argument, the Defendant relied on a recent first instance decision in an anonymised decision of the DIFC Courts in ENF 185-2025 (25 November 2025), which supported this interpretation.
The Claimant’s case
The Claimant contended that the DIFC Court has jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign judgments regardless of whether assets are currently located within the DIFC.
In support of this position, the Claimant relied on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Trafigura PTE Ltd v Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001. Although Trafigura concerned interim measures under Article 15.4 of the DIFC Courts Law, the Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning regarding the breadth of the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction applied equally to final enforcement orders under Article 31.4.
Guidance for DIFC Practitioners
H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dismissed the Defendant’s Application in its entirety and upheld both Orders. The Defendant’s contingent application for permission to appeal was also refused, on the grounds that it had “no real prospect of success.”
In the Schedule of Reasons issued on 11 March 2026, the Court provided significant clarification on the scope of the DIFC Courts’ enforcement jurisdiction. The following key points emerge:
- The Court declined to follow the anonymised first instance decision in ENF 185-2025, which had suggested that Article 31.4 requires assets to be located within the DIFC before enforcement jurisdiction can arise. The Court held that Article 31.4 of the DIFC Courts Law does not require assets to be present within the DIFC for the Court to grant an enforcement order. The phrase “inside the DIFC” refers to the exercise of the Court’s enforcement jurisdiction, rather than the physical location of assets;
- The principles established in Trafigura regarding interim measures apply a fortiori to final enforcement orders. As Justice Cooke observed, it would be “bizarre” if the Court had broader jurisdiction to grant interim measures than to recognise and enforce final judgments;
- The judgment emphasises the distinction between an enforcement order and the execution of that order. The DIFC Courts may recognise and enforce a foreign judgment even where no assets are currently located within the DIFC. Such an order may subsequently be executed if assets come within the jurisdiction, or it may form the basis of a request to the onshore Dubai Courts for execution under Article 32 of the DIFC Courts law;
- The Court confirmed that the earlier DIFC authorities (Lateef, Carmon, DNB Bank, and Banyan Tree) recgonising the Court’s role as a conduit jurisdiction remain applicable under the DIFC Courts Law; and
- The Court affirmed its power to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution where a defendant has demonstrated a history of non-compliance and there is a risk of dissipation. The Court noted that the “only practical way” to enforce the orders of the English Court was via a receiver, rejecting the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant should have simply utilised standard execution procedures in the onshore Dubai Courts.
Concluding remarks
This judgment provides confirmation that the DIFC Courts Law has not narrowed the DIFC Courts’ enforcement jurisdiction. The decision reaffirms the DIFC Court’s status as a conduit jurisdiction and demonstrates the Court’s willingness to grant ex-parte remedies, to ensure that foreign judgments are not evaded by obstinate debtors. The Court’s decision to award costs on an indemnity basis serves as a stark warning that parties who seek to evade lawful court orders may face significant financial consequences.
For more information, please contact Adrian Chadwick, Partner, Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution at a.chadwick@hadefpartners.com; or Kim Mullins, Associate at k.mullins@hadefpartners.com.
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek independent legal counsel in relation to their specific circumstances.