Arbitral Digest

Matter

Princeton v Persephone (DIFC Courts ARB 015/2026 and ARB 027/2026)

The Princeton–Persephone DIAC arbitration and related DIFC proceedings concern a challenge to, recognition of, and costs arising from a final award.

  • International commercial arbitration
  • Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
  • Setting aside arbitral awards
  • Parallel proceedings

Procedural record

  1. 19 January 2026Arbitration

    19 January 2026Arbitration

    Final majority arbitral award dated 19 January 2026

    Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

    Decision summary
    A final majority arbitral award was issued in the DIAC arbitration; the DIFC Court later ordered the award set aside.

    Participants

    Princeton
    Persephone
    Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

    3 months and 17 days later · 107 days

  2. 6 May 2026United Arab Emirates

    6 May 2026United Arab Emirates

    Recognition Order of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts in ARB 027/2026 dated 6 May 2026

    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts

    Case no.
    ARB 027/2026
    Decision summary
    The Court granted the recognition claim without notice and recognised the Final Award.

    5 days later · 5 days

  3. 11 May 2026United Arab Emirates

    11 May 2026United Arab Emirates

    Order of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts in ARB 015/2026 dated 11 May 2026

    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts

    Case no.
    ARB 015/2026
    Decision summary
    The Court refused the informal application for the set-aside claim to be determined on the papers, gave directions for the hearing, and reserved costs.

    1 month and 20 days later · 51 days

  4. 1 July 2026United Arab Emirates

    1 July 2026United Arab Emirates

    Order of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts in ARB 027/2026 dated 1 July 2026

    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts

    Case no.
    ARB 027/2026
    Decision summary
    The Court dismissed the security application and prohibited enforcement of the Final Award until final determination of the set-aside claim.

    1 month and 13 days later · 44 days

  5. 14 August 2026United Arab Emirates

    14 August 2026United Arab Emirates

    Set Aside Order of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts dated 14 August 2026

    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts

    Case no.
    ARB 015/2026 and ARB 027/2026
    Decision summary
    The Court set aside the Final Award, set aside the Recognition Order, and dismissed the recognition claim.

    1 month and 7 days later · 38 days

  6. 21 September 2026United Arab Emirates

    21 September 2026United Arab Emirates

    Order with Reasons of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Court of First Instance in the cases ARB 015/2026 and ARB 027/2026 dated 21 September 2026

    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    ARB 015/2026 and ARB 027/2026
    Decision summary
    The Court directed the parties to lodge a draft order implementing its costs assessment. It assessed Princeton’s costs on the standard basis, rejected a stay pending appeal, and ordered interest at 9% on the costs sum from the date of the costs order until payment.

    Participants

    Application
    ARB 015/2026 set-aside claim — Final Award set aside
    Application
    ARB 027/2026 recognition claim — Recognition Order set aside and claim dismissed
    Application
    ARB 027/2026/1 application — Recognition Order set-aside application determined
    Application
    ARB 027/2026/2 security application — Security application dismissed
    Princeton
    Persephone
    Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Court of First Instance
    Judge
    H.E. Justice Mark Pelling
    Court registrar
    Delvin Sumo

    Authorities cited

    14
    • DIFC Arbitration Law (DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008)
      statute
    • Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
      court rules
    • DIFC Courts Law, Article 9(C)
      statute
    • Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 9(C)
      statute
    • Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
      practice direction
    • Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017
      practice direction
    • Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm) ([2002] EWCA Civ 879)
      case law
    • Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd ([2009] DIFC CFI 026)
      case law
    • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England ([2006] EWHC 816 (Comm))
      case law
    • Arcadia Group Brands Ltd v Visa Inc ([2015] EWCA Civ 883)
      case law
    • Nazeer v Noah ([2024] DIFC ARB 011)
      case law
    • AES v GSB ([2023] DIFC CFI 060)
      case law
    • Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC ([2025] DIFC DEC 001)
      case law
    • Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc v Zhunus ([2015] EWHC 404 (Comm))
      case law

Matter record

Report a correction

Princeton v Persephone (DIFC Courts ARB 015/2026 and ARB 027/2026) · Matter