Introduction
On 2 September 2025, the CJT issued a landmark decision in Serene Resources DMCC v Energen DMCC. It determined that the DIFC Courts had no jurisdiction to continue hearing an award creditor’s claim for recognition and enforcement of a SIAC arbitration award rendered on 11 June 2025 (the “SIAC Award”) in circumstances where parallel set aside proceedings were on foot in the onshore Dubai Courts. The CJT found that the Dubai Courts (“as the holder of general jurisdiction”) were the most suitable court to hear any claims arising from the SIAC Award, including claims concerning its enforcement.
Background
Before turning to the decision, it is useful to discuss how the CJT was established and how it functions within Dubai’s legal system.
On 9 June 2016, HH The Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, issued Decree 19 of 2016 (the “Decree 19”), which established the Joint Judicial Committee (the “JJC”). The four key functions of the JJC are set out in Article 2 of Decree 19, but its most widely-used function was to “determine the competent court having jurisdiction over any claim or application in respect of which a conflict of jurisdiction between the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts is raised”.
On 3 April 2024, HH The Ruler of Dubai issued Decree 29 of 2024 (the “Decree 29”), which replaced Decree 19. Under Decree 29, the JJC was given a new name; it is now, according to Article 2(b), officially known as the “Judicial Committee for Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts and Judicial Entities in the Emirate of Dubai”, and colloquially referred to as the CJT – the Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal.
Unlike the JJC, which had four key functions, the CJT only has two, namely: (a) to determine which Judicial Entity has jurisdiction over a claim or application where a conflict has arisen between the DIFC Courts and the Judicial Entity in question; and (b) to determine which judgment will be the enforceable one in circumstances where the DIFC Courts and the relevant Judicial Entity have issued conflicting judgments.
An important development introduced by Decree 29 is the incorporation of the stare decisis principle. Under Article 9(c), any decisions issued by the CJT shall be “deemed judicial precedents” and all Judicial Entities, including the DIFC Courts, are bound to follow them. This represents a notable shift in Dubai’s legal landscape as the UAE is a civil law jurisdiction in which judicial precedent is not traditionally binding on lower courts, although decisions of higher courts do hold some persuasive value.
The Decision
Serene was the successful party in a Dubai-seated SIAC arbitration in which it was awarded a sum of approximately $7.57 million. Having not received payment from Energen, Serene approached the DIFC Courts in late June 2025 seeking recognition and enforcement of the SIAC Award. The DIFC Courts recognised and enforced the SIAC Award on 9 July 2025. Serene subsequently applied to the DIFC Courts for a worldwide freezing injunction, relying on Energen’s failure to comply with the SIAC Award as evidence that it may be taking steps to dissipate its assets and frustrate enforcement of the Award. The DIFC Courts issued a worldwide freezing injunction on 21 July 2025 (the “WFO”).
Prior to the issuance of the WFO, on 16 July 2025, Energen filed an application with the Dubai Courts to have the SIAC Award set aside.
On 28 July 2025, Energen filed an application with the CJT asserting that the onshore Dubai Courts (and not the DIFC Courts) had jurisdiction concerning enforcement of the SIAC Award. The thrust of Energen’s submission was that, because the seat of arbitration was onshore Dubai, jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Dubai Courts. Energen therefore applied to the DIFC Courts on 1 August 2025 to stay enforcement of the SIAC Award, but on 7 August 2025, that application was refused by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi on the following basis: “Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law empowers the DIFC Courts to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, including those outside the DIFC […] the DIFC Courts have prima facie jurisdiction to enforce the Award, irrespective of the seat being onshore Dubai”.
On 2 September 2025, the CJT issued its decision on Energen’s application, which, in summary, was as follows:
• It found Energen’s application to be admissible in form because Energen had “established the existence of a case of positive conflict” between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Courts, notwithstanding that each court was dealing with separate applications.
• It found that, pursuant to Article 1 of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law, the Dubai Courts are “competent to hear the arbitration case as the holder of general jurisdiction in accordance with the law applicable to it”.
• It noted that, pursuant to the DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025, the DIFC Courts only have jurisdiction over “cases if one of the cases stipulated in Article 14 applies” and one of those “cases” is Article 14(5) which refers to “claims and requests for recognition or ratification of Arbitral Awards in accordance with the application arbitration law inside the [DIFC]”.
• It determined that Energen’s set-aside application before the Dubai Courts is “inseparably linked” to Serene’s recognition and enforcement claim in the DIFC Courts.
• It found that: (a) neither Serene nor Energen was a DIFC entity; (b) there was no express agreement to opt-in to the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction; and (c) there were no assets in the DIFC against which enforcement could be effected.
• It concluded that “for the proper administration of justice and in consideration of the rules of consistency, the Tribunal believes that the Dubai Courts, as the holder of general jurisdiction, are the most suitable to hear the lawsuits related to [the SIAC Award] as well as its enforcement”.
For these reasons, the CJT determined that the DIFC Courts had no jurisdiction to consider Serene’s recognition and enforcement claim. The CJT accordingly directed the DIFC Courts to suspend the recognition and enforcement order granted on 9 July 2025.
Ramifications of the Decision
The DIFC Courts have frequently been used as a conduit for enforcement in onshore Dubai. While the early years of the JJC were marked by some uncertainty as to the permissibility of this practice, in recent years that uncertainty would have seemed largely resolved: there have been numerous cases in the DIFC Courts where it has been held that the presence of assets in the DIFC is not a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction.
It now seems likely that the DIFC Courts will not have the jurisdiction to hear an award creditor’s recognition and enforcement claim (brought on a “conduit” basis) in circumstances where the award debtor has filed parallel set aside/annulment proceedings in the Dubai Courts. Based on the CJT decision, the Dubai Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over such a claim for two reasons: (a) the claim is “inseparably linked” to the set aside proceedings; and (b) it would be in the “proper administration of justice” because the Dubai Courts possess the “general jurisdiction” over the claim.
Unfortunately, the CJT decision also appears to have reintroduced a new degree of uncertainty as regards awards issued in onshore Dubai. It is now unclear:
• whether, in the absence of parallel set aside proceedings in the Dubai Courts, the DIFC Courts would be permitted to exercise jurisdiction over a “conduit” recognition and enforcement claim; and
• whether the existence of parallel set aside proceedings in the Dubai Courts precludes the DIFC Courts from exercising its jurisdiction to recognise and enforce an award against a debtor that holds assets in the DIFC or is otherwise a DIFC-registered entity.
The CJT evidently considers that set aside/annulment proceedings are “inextricably linked” to enforcement, and in those circumstances the CJT adopts the view that the Dubai Courts possess the “general jurisdiction” to hear all claims and applications in respect of the arbitral award in question. This approach aligns with the view of the JJC majority in its early years. In those cases, the JJC minority (all comprising DIFC Court judges) took the view that both courts had jurisdiction: “although it is clear that the courts of the seat are the Dubai courts, it is equally clear that the DIFCC has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the award within the DIFC”.
Conclusion
Award creditors will now need to adopt a more cautious approach when seeking enforcement of their awards in the DIFC, given the risk of incurring irrecoverable costs if the DIFC Courts are ultimately found to lack jurisdiction. It may therefore be sensible for parties to await the conclusion of any set aside proceedings in the Dubai Courts (or at least the expiry of the 30-day period to initiate such proceedings) before commencing a recognition and enforcement claim in the DIFC.
[1] Application No. 002/2025 (CJT)
[2] Decree 29 defines Judicial Entity as “The Dubai Courts, the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre in the Emirate, any tribunal formed pursuant to a decree or resolution of the Ruler or the Chairman, or any other entity in the Emirate whose establishing or regulating legislation stipulates that it is a judicial entity”.
[3] The DIFC Courts had been considering Serene’s recognition and enforcement claim while the set aside application was before the Dubai Courts.
[4] Mishmish v Sweet Homes Real Estate (Cassation No. 3/2017); Daman Real Estate Partners v Oger (Cassation 1/2016); Dubai Water Front v Chenshan Liu (Cassation No. 2/2016)
[5] Dissenting Opinion in Mishmish (5 June 2017), para. 6
Disclaimer
This publication does not provide any legal advice, and it is for information purposes only. You should not rely upon the material or information in this publication as a basis for making any business, legal, or other decisions. Any reliance you place on such material is therefore strictly at your own risk.
