The Dubai Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal has delivered an important judgment that provides valuable guidance on the circumstances in which a genuine jurisdictional conflict exists between the Dubai Courts and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts. In Application No. 002/2026 (CJT), issued on 8 June 2026, the Tribunal reaffirmed that the mere existence of parallel proceedings before two judicial forums does not automatically trigger the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Rather, there must be a true conflict concerning the same dispute, involving the same legal cause, subject matter, and relief sought, or a real possibility of irreconcilable judgments.
The judgment is of considerable significance for financial institutions, litigants, insolvency practitioners, and commercial lawyers who frequently encounter parallel proceedings before the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, particularly in banking, fraud, enforcement, and asset recovery disputes.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from banking facilities granted by Bank to a Company. The Applicant’s father was one of the company’s partners and personal guarantors under the banking facilities. Following default under those facilities, the Bank successfully obtained a final judgment before the Dubai Courts in Commercial Claim No. 67/2016 against the company, the Applicant’s father, and other liable parties. Importantly, the Applicant himself was never a party to the facility agreement, the guarantees, or the underlying Dubai proceedings.
After obtaining its judgment, the Bank commenced enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, however, the Bank initiated fresh proceedings before the DIFC Courts (Claim No. CFI-039-2025) against the Applicant, his father, and his two sisters, seeking approximately AED 322.55 million. The Bank alleged that, following the default and judgment, the father had transferred assets and funds to his children with the intention of frustrating enforcement proceedings and placing those assets beyond the reach of creditors. The DIFC proceedings sought recovery of those assets, their value, or compensation based upon allegations of tortious conduct, fraudulent transfers, concealment of assets, and transactions prejudicial to creditors.
In response, the Applicant commenced separate proceedings before the Dubai Courts seeking a declaration that he bore no liability whatsoever for the banking debt, asserting that he had never signed the banking facilities, provided guarantees, or been a party to the original litigation. He simultaneously applied to the Dubai Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal requesting that the Dubai Courts be declared the competent forum and that the DIFC proceedings be stayed.
The Central Issue Before the Tribunal
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the proceedings before the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts constituted the “same dispute” for the purposes of Decree No. 29 of 2024 governing conflicts of jurisdiction between judicial authorities within the Emirate of Dubai.
The Applicant argued that both proceedings ultimately concerned the same judgment debt arising from the banking facilities and therefore involved the same legal relationship.
The Bank, however, maintained that the DIFC proceedings did not seek enforcement of the Dubai judgment against the Applicant as a debtor. Instead, they constituted a completely separate cause of action based upon subsequent wrongful conduct involving alleged transfers and concealment of assets.
The Tribunal therefore had to determine whether these two proceedings genuinely conflicted with one another within the meaning of Article 6 of Decree No. 29 of 2024.
The Tribunal’s Interpretation of Decree No. 29 of 2024
The Tribunal began by analysing the scope of its own jurisdiction under Decree No. 29 of 2024.
It emphasised that its jurisdiction is exceptional rather than automatic. Article 6 does not authorise intervention simply because two proceedings are pending simultaneously before different judicial bodies.
Instead, a conflict exists only where:
- both proceedings concern the same claim or application;
- both involve substantially identical legal causes;
- both seek substantially identical relief; or
- the continuation of both proceedings would likely result in conflicting judgments that cannot be reconciled.
The Tribunal explained that factual overlap or historical connection between disputes is insufficient. A genuine jurisdictional conflict requires substantial identity of cause, subject matter, and relief sought.
Nature of the Dubai Courts Proceedings
The Tribunal carefully examined the claim pending before the Dubai Courts.
It found that the Dubai proceedings were purely declaratory in nature. The Applicant sought judicial confirmation that he was not personally liable for the debt arising from the banking facilities because he had never been a contracting party, guarantor, or defendant in the original banking litigation.
Accordingly, the legal foundation of the Dubai action rested upon the absence of any contractual relationship between the Applicant and the Bank and the absence of any binding effect of the earlier Dubai judgment upon him.
The sole question before the Dubai Courts was therefore whether the Applicant’s legal liability for the original banking debt existed at all.
Nature of the DIFC Proceedings
The Tribunal then analysed the DIFC claim.
It observed that the DIFC proceedings did not seek to convert the Applicant into a debtor under the original banking facilities.
Nor did the Bank seek direct enforcement of the Dubai judgment against him.
Instead, the Bank alleged that the Applicant had independently participated in receiving, concealing, controlling, or benefiting from assets transferred by the judgment debtor with the intention of frustrating execution proceedings.
Those allegations constituted entirely new factual circumstances arising after the original banking litigation.
Consequently, the Bank’s claim before the DIFC Courts was founded upon independent legal duties arising under the law of tort and principles protecting creditors against fraudulent asset dissipation, rather than contractual obligations arising from the original banking relationship.
Independent Tortious Liability Under UAE Law
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Tribunal’s discussion of tortious liability under the UAE Civil Transactions Law.
The Tribunal referred specifically to Articles 282, 292, and 293 of the Civil Transactions Law, which establish the general principles governing civil liability for wrongful acts.
The Tribunal reaffirmed several important legal principles:
A person may incur liability for a wrongful act even though no contractual relationship exists with the injured party.
Similarly, an individual need not be a debtor under the original obligation to become independently liable for subsequent conduct causing damage to a creditor.
Accordingly, a person who assists in concealing, controlling, transferring, or dissipating a debtor’s assets may incur separate civil liability irrespective of whether he was originally liable for the underlying contractual debt.
The Tribunal therefore recognised that liability arising from tortious conduct constitutes an entirely separate legal source of obligations under UAE law.
Why No Jurisdictional Conflict Existed
Having analysed both proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that they differed fundamentally.
The Dubai action concerned whether the Applicant was personally liable for the original banking debt.
The DIFC proceedings concerned whether the Applicant subsequently committed independent wrongful acts by allegedly assisting the judgment debtor in concealing assets.
The legal causes differed.
The factual foundations differed.
The legal obligations differed.
The remedies sought differed.
Most importantly, the Tribunal held that both proceedings could continue simultaneously without creating inconsistent or irreconcilable judgments.
For example, the Dubai Courts could determine that the Applicant never owed the banking debt while the DIFC Courts could nevertheless conclude that he later became independently liable for wrongful conduct relating to concealment of assets.
These conclusions are legally compatible rather than contradictory.
Accordingly, no jurisdictional conflict existed within the meaning of Decree No. 29 of 2024.
Request to Stay the DIFC Proceedings
The Applicant further sought an order staying the DIFC proceedings pending determination of the jurisdiction application.
The Tribunal rejected that request.
It clarified that Article 7(1) of Decree No. 29 of 2024 does not automatically suspend proceedings merely because a jurisdiction application has been filed.
A stay arises only where a genuine jurisdictional conflict exists.
Since the Tribunal concluded that no such conflict was present, there was neither factual nor legal justification for staying the DIFC claim.
Final Decision
The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application.
It held that:
- the Dubai Courts proceedings and the DIFC Courts proceedings concerned different legal causes;
- they involved different subject matters;
- they sought different remedies;
- their continuation would not produce conflicting judgments incapable of reconciliation; and
- accordingly, no jurisdictional conflict existed under Decree No. 29 of 2024.
The Tribunal therefore declined to designate either court as having exclusive jurisdiction and refused to interfere with the continuation of the DIFC proceedings. It further ordered that the Applicant’s AED 3,000 security deposit be forfeited pursuant to Article 8 of Decree No. 29 of 2024 following dismissal of the application.
Practical Significance of the Judgment
This decision provides important guidance for future jurisdiction disputes involving the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts.
First, it confirms that the existence of parallel litigation alone is insufficient to establish a jurisdictional conflict.
Secondly, courts will examine the true legal character of each claim rather than merely comparing the factual background or the parties involved.
Thirdly, creditors remain entitled to pursue independent tort claims against third parties alleged to have assisted judgment debtors in dissipating or concealing assets, even where those third parties deny liability for the underlying contractual debt.
Fourthly, declaratory proceedings challenging contractual liability do not automatically prevent separate proceedings concerning independent tortious conduct.
Finally, the judgment reinforces the complementary relationship between the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts by recognising that both judicial systems may exercise jurisdiction simultaneously where they are determining different legal rights arising from different causes of action.
Conclusion
Application No. 002/2026 (CJT) represents an important clarification of the jurisdictional boundaries between the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts. The Tribunal reaffirmed that its role is not to eliminate parallel proceedings, but rather to resolve only genuine conflicts where competing courts are asked to determine the same legal dispute.
The decision underscores an important principle of UAE procedural law: while contractual liability and tortious liability may arise from related factual circumstances, they remain legally distinct causes of action capable of proceeding independently before different courts where no irreconcilable conflict exists. For banks, creditors, defendants, and legal practitioners engaged in complex asset recovery and enforcement litigation, this judgment provides valuable guidance on the proper application of Decree No. 29 of 2024 and the circumstances in which the Dubai Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal will, and will not, intervene.