Trowers & Hamlins has successfully won a landmark appeal before the DIFC Court of Appeal (Ostin v Oleda DIFC CA-001-2026), heard before H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin, H.E. Sir Peter Gross and H.E. Justice Robert French, securing a ruling that sets a binding precedent that enhances the DIFC enforcement regime as a whole.
The ruling marks a defining moment in the DIFC Court's enforcement landscape as it represents the first time the DIFC Court of Appeal has definitively and authoritatively resolved the question of whether RDC Part 50 (the DIFC Courts' powerful examination mechanism) extends to assets located outside the DIFC under the New DIFC Court Law (DIFC Court Law No. 2 of 2025). The Court of Appeal confirmed that it does.
The Court of Appeal held that "In our opinion, the jurisdiction conferred by Article 31(4) is not constrained to enforcement action concerning assets within the DIFC and does not constrain the scope of the power in aid of that jurisdiction which is conferred by RDC Part 50." The Court of Appeal's findings fundamentally strengthen the position of judgment creditors enforcing substantial debts through the DIFC Courts.
Background
The appeal arose from the Appellant's efforts to enforce a Dubai Court judgment that was upheld by the Dubai Court of Cassation for a debt that now stands at approximately AED 80 million.
The Appellant applied for the recognition of the Dubai Court judgment under RDC Part 45 and sought an order pursuant to RDC Part 50, an examination mechanism enabling the court to require an officer of a Respondent to attend court and provide answers relating to the existence and location of assets belonging to the Respondent against which the Appellant may later seek to enforce the judgment.
The DIFC Court of First Instance granted both the Part 45 Order as well as the Part 50 Order which did not impose a territorial restriction on the examination of the Respondent's assets. The Respondent subsequently applied to set aside both orders. Whilst the DIFC Court of First Instance maintained the Part 45 recognition order, the Part 50 examination order was restricted to assets within the DIFC alone, holding that information relating to assets located elsewhere must be sought in another court.
The Appellant applied for permission to appeal this decision on the basis that the judge had erred in law on the interpretation of Article 31(4) of the New DIFC Court Law by treating the reference to enforcement "inside the DIFC" as imposing a geographical limitation by reference to the location of assets, when in fact Article 31(4) imposes no asset-location restriction on the existence of the DIFC Courts' enforcement jurisdiction or on the ancillary powers exercisable in aid of that jurisdiction.
The DIFC Court formally acknowledged the significance of the issues at the outset, granting permission to appeal on the express basis that "the Appeal Court will set a precedent as to the interpretation of Article 31(4)" and that "there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard."
Outcome
The DIFC Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in full. The territorial restriction imposed by the Enforcement Judge was set aside and the Part 50 examination order was restored without limitation.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal resolved definitively the proper construction of the phrase "inside the DIFC" in Article 31(4) of the New DIFC Court Law, rejecting the view that it imposes a geographical limitation tied to the location of a judgment debtor's assets. The Court of Appeal held that "The words 'inside the DIFC' in Article 31(4) do not refer to subject matter or entities 'within the DIFC'. They clearly refer to the place of enforcement", a point the Court illustrated by demonstrating that relocating those words within the provision did not alter its meaning.
The Court of Appeal went further, characterising as an "absurd result" the proposition that jurisdiction and powers under RDC Part 50 could only be exercised in relation to assets within the DIFC. The Court of Appeal observed that such a construction would make the existence of DIFC assets a precondition of the very jurisdiction conferred to discover whether such assets existed, and warned that "[t]he propounded limitation would result in unnecessary boundaries between the coverage of inquiries by the DIFC Enforcement Court and those of judges elsewhere providing scope for endless jurisdictional gaming."
The Court of Appeal's conclusion was unequivocal: "In our opinion, the jurisdiction conferred by Article 31(4) is not constrained to enforcement action concerning assets within the DIFC and does not constrain the scope of the power in aid of that jurisdiction which is conferred by RDC Part 50."
The Court of Appeal also firmly rejected the Respondent's argument that the New DIFC Court Law was enacted to effect a comprehensive demarcation of jurisdiction between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Courts, holding that "the text of the New Law does not support such a comprehensive demarcation" and that any such reading "would provide fertile soil for jurisdictional gaming around the boundaries", with overlaps and conflicts between the two courts being "best resolved by the exercise of sensible discretion and ultimately can be the subject of decision by the Conflicts of Jurisdiction Committee."
The ruling establishes, as a matter of binding precedent, that once the enforcement jurisdiction is engaged through a recognised judgment under RDC Part 45, the full suite of ancillary enforcement tools, including examination orders under RDC Part 50, is available to a judgment creditor without regard to where the relevant assets may be located.
Magda Kofluk, Partner at Trowers & Hamlins LLP, said:
"This is a fantastic result for our client and an important decision for the DIFC enforcement regime as a whole. The Court of Appeal has decisively confirmed that RDC Part 50 is an unconstrained, investigative mechanism designed to enable effective enforcement, and it cannot be fettered by a territorial limitation that does not exist in the Rules or the statute. This decision will be of fundamental importance to any party seeking to enforce a judgment through the DIFC Courts and will significantly strengthen the DIFC Court's standing as the enforcement forum of choice for international creditors in the region."
