In follow-up to our March 2017 Law Update article, ‘UAE Court Dismisses Physical Bunker Supplier Claim Against Ship Owner’, this article provides an overview of the subsequent determination of the UAE Union Supreme Court’s judgment (Appeal 655 for the year of 2016 / Commercial) in relation to the bunkering matter.

A recent decision of a specialist tribunal in Dubai could have far-reaching consequences for the maritime industry. In this article Robert Thomas QC, of Quadrant Chambers, and Robert Lawrence and Leonard Soudagar, of Clyde & Co, examine how it is now possible, in certain circumstances, for a shipowner to set up a limitation fund in the UAE.

In September 2018 the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (“DIFCA”) announced that it proposes to replace its current insolvency law with a new law to update the insolvency regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and that it has launched a consultation in relation to the same.

Why are changes proposed?

A declaration of bankruptcy, according to Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law, can be imposed on any trader who ceases to pay some or all of its commercial debts. While a debtor’s cessation of payment is a presumption against him, the trader might not be considered bankrupt if the failure to pay is due to a dispute regarding the debt. In other words, it is important to prove that the debtor ceased to pay a certain commercial debt due to financial distress and credit issues.

In a noteworthy first decision, the Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Court and DIFC Court (JT), established to decide conflicts of jurisdiction between the two courts, has ruled on 27 January 2017 that Daman Real Capital Partners Company LLC v. Oger Dubai LLC case should be remitted for trial by the Dubai Court, and that the DIFC Court should cease from entertaining the case entirely.

Кто должен платить, когда поставщик топлива становится неплатежеспособным.

1. Введение

In a landmark legal development, a judgment of the DIFC Courts has been recognised and enforced for the first time in a Western jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, issued an order recognising and enforcing the DIFC Courts judgment issued by Justice Sir Richard Field in Legatum Limited v Arif Salim (CFI 027/2014).

In these challenging economic times, some businesses are struggling to cope with financial pressures and financiers are concerned with their customers’ ability to service their financing arrangements. An effective insolvency regime is, therefore, an important element of financial system stability. The statutory insolvency regime in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has often been regarded as under-developed and remains largely untested.

Enforcement of a judgment should be the crown jewel of every successful claim.

However, the picture is not always as rosy. Sometimes the successful litigant is faced with the realisation that the judgment debtor has no substantial assets for the enforcement and recovery of the awarded sums. What is left is an ‘empty’ judgment.

This article will attempt to discuss the situation of empty judgments, what brings them about, ways to prevent them, as well as some practical recommendation and suggestions from our practice and experience.

In a recent landmark judgment dated 21 February 2016 the Dubai Court of First Instance decided in favour of a foreign shareholder, against a local Emirati, in a winding up petition. This is contrary to the long established protectionist trend employed by Courts in the United Arab Emirates. What is even more surprising is that the Court, in reaching its decision, has adopted a purposive approach, rather than simply applying the black letter of the law, as has traditionally been the case.

Case Details