28 April 2016

Dubai Court adopts a purposive approach to rule in favour of foreign stakeholder

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

The Claimant applied to the Dubai Courts for, inter alia, the dissolution and liquidation of two companies on the basis that the dispute between the foreign Claimant and the local partner was irreparable to the point that it was impossible to lift a moratorium which had been imposed.

The Claimant argued that:

  • The business relationship between the partners was permanently damaged, thus triggering the operation of Article 281(3) of the Companies Law, as all of the companies’ assets would inevitably and substantially deplete over time as a result of the freeze; and
  • The application would allow for mitigation, limiting the loss sustained by each of the parties which would otherwise continue to grow (as a result of the moratorium).

The Defendant argued that the Court could not make an order for liquidation or dissolution of the companies on the basis that none of the exhaustive pre-conditions set out at Article 281 were satisfied.

The Court found for the Claimant.


This decision represents a significant diversion by the Dubai Courts from standard practice.  It is rare for a Dubai Court to allow a foreigner to exit from its shareholder relationship with a local partner and sponsor, without the consent of the local shareholder.

Cases such as these are usually rejected, giving rise to a perception that the Courts will protect the position of the local towards the foreigner. This decision is a leading example of a fresh approach, offering a new direction for the Courts.

The ruling achieved here is a prime example of the innovative and market-leading work our Arabic courts litigation team is carrying out, and of the high standard of quality legal advice our clients can expect.

KWM Belt & Road Center for International Cooperation and Facilitation

In March 2019, King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) established the Belt & Road Center for International Cooperation and Facilitation (BRCICF).

Belt and Road

A Guide to Doing Business in China

We explore the key issues being considered by clients looking to unlock investment opportunities in the People’s Republic of China.

Doing Business in China
Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
    You might also be interested in

    Arbitration arose as a private out-of-court means to resolve disputes. Autonomy, confidentiality, flexibility, neutrality, and finality attracted users. However, some of these very features have...

    19 November 2018

    One reason for electing for arbitration as a dispute mechanism is confidentiality of proceedings. But what does that mean?

    19 November 2018

    Our experts give their top 10 predictions about international arbitration in 2028

    19 November 2018

    Learn about the new International Court International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Rules

    19 November 2018

    Legal services for your business

    This site uses cookies to enhance your experience and to help us improve the site. Please see our Privacy Policy for further information. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive these cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

    For more information on which cookies we use then please refer to our Cookie Policy.