Civil Law and UAE Anti-Suit Injunction Concepts

1. Introduction

An anti-suit injunction (ASI) is an order of one court directing a party not to commence, continue, prosecute, or take further steps in proceedings before another court or tribunal.

The concept is particularly important in international commercial disputes where parties have agreed to:

• arbitration in a particular seat;
• exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court;
• an exclusive forum;
• a contractual dispute-resolution mechanism.

The UAE position is distinctive because the UAE contains different judicial systems. The distinction between the onshore UAE/Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts is therefore fundamental.

The DIFC Courts have expressly recognised their power to grant anti-suit injunctions, including in appropriate circumstances to restrain proceedings in the non-DIFC Dubai Courts.

However, an anti-suit injunction is not a general licence to interfere with every foreign or parallel proceeding. Courts emphasise jurisdiction, contractual rights, arbitration agreements, oppression/vexation, comity and the circumstances of the particular case.

2. Meaning of an Anti-Suit Injunction

An anti-suit injunction is an order directed principally at the party, not technically at the foreign court.

For example:

A and B agree that all disputes will be resolved by arbitration seated in the DIFC.

B nevertheless starts proceedings in another court.

A may ask the DIFC Court to order B:

“Do not commence, continue or prosecute those court proceedings.”

The DIFC Court does not purport to command the foreign judge.

Instead, it restrains B's conduct as a litigant.

This distinction is important because an anti-suit injunction raises questions of:

• judicial comity;
• sovereignty;
• jurisdiction;
• contractual autonomy;
• arbitration;
• enforcement;
• procedural fairness.

3. UAE's Dual Judicial Structure

A proper UAE analysis must distinguish:

A. Onshore UAE Courts

These include the federal courts and local courts such as the Dubai Courts and Abu Dhabi Courts.

B. DIFC Courts

The DIFC Courts operate under a common-law-oriented framework within the DIFC.

C. ADGM Courts

The ADGM Courts likewise operate under a common-law framework.

Consequently, the phrase “UAE anti-suit injunction” does not describe a single uniform doctrine applied identically throughout the UAE.

The DIFC Courts have developed a substantial body of jurisprudence concerning anti-suit relief.

4. Anti-Suit Injunction and Civil Law

Traditional UAE civil law does not historically approach anti-suit injunctions in exactly the same way as English common law.

The concept has become particularly important through the DIFC Courts, whose procedural and judicial framework incorporates substantial English common-law principles.

Therefore:

Anti-suit injunctions in the UAE are most clearly developed in the DIFC judicial system rather than as a universally available remedy of every onshore UAE court.

The DIFC Courts have themselves explained that their anti-suit principles are derived from English law.

5. Principal Grounds for an Anti-Suit Injunction

The DIFC jurisprudence identifies two principal grounds.

A. Contractual Ground

An injunction may protect a contractual right not to be sued in another forum.

This can arise from:

• exclusive jurisdiction clauses;
• arbitration agreements;
• exclusive forum agreements.

For example:

“Any dispute shall be exclusively resolved by the DIFC Courts.”

If one party starts proceedings elsewhere, the other may seek an injunction enforcing the negative aspect of the agreement.

Similarly:

“All disputes shall be referred to DIFC-seated arbitration.”

Starting court proceedings elsewhere may breach the negative promise not to litigate outside arbitration.

B. Non-Contractual Ground

An injunction may also be available where foreign proceedings are:

• vexatious;
• oppressive;
• unconscionable;
• abusive;
• interfering with the administration of justice.

The DIFC Courts have expressly recognised both the contractual and non-contractual grounds.

6. Anti-Suit Injunction and Arbitration

This is probably the most important UAE context.

An arbitration agreement contains two dimensions.

Positive obligation

The parties promise:

“We will arbitrate disputes.”

Negative obligation

The parties implicitly or expressly agree:

“We will not litigate those disputes in another forum.”

The anti-suit injunction protects the negative obligation.

The DIFC Court in Brookfield Multiplex Constructions LLC v DIFC Investments LLC & DIFC Authority explained that the anti-suit injunction can protect the negative promise contained in an arbitration agreement independently of the arbitral proceedings themselves.

7. Importance of the Seat of Arbitration

The seat is critically important.

Suppose the contract provides:

“The arbitration shall be seated in the DIFC.”

The DIFC Courts are then the supervisory courts of the arbitration.

The DIFC Court is therefore much more willing to protect the parties' agreement by restraining litigation brought elsewhere.

But if the seat is:

Dubai outside the DIFC,

the situation becomes considerably more complicated.

The DIFC Courts have repeatedly emphasised that an injunction in such circumstances would generally be unusual or exceptional, partly because of comity between the DIFC and Dubai Courts.

8. Anti-Suit Injunction Is Discretionary

An ASI is not automatic.

Even where a contractual or arbitration clause exists, the court exercises judicial discretion.

Relevant considerations can include:

• existence of a valid arbitration/jurisdiction agreement;
• proper interpretation of the clause;
• seat of arbitration;
• jurisdiction of the court;
• whether foreign proceedings breach the agreement;
• whether proceedings are vexatious or oppressive;
• comity;
• procedural history;
• adequacy of other remedies;
• balance of convenience;
• urgency.

The DIFC Courts have repeatedly described the remedy as discretionary.

9. High Degree of Probability

Where the existence or applicability of the arbitration agreement is disputed at the interim stage, DIFC jurisprudence has required the applicant to establish a high degree of probability that the relevant arbitration agreement exists and binds the parties.

This principle appears prominently in Hayri International LLC v Hazim Telecom Private Ltd and was subsequently considered in Ledger v Leeor and Narciso v Nash.

This is important because an applicant cannot simply assert:

“There is an arbitration clause.”

The court may have to determine provisionally:

• whether the clause exists;
• who is bound by it;
• what disputes it covers;
• what law governs it;
• what the seat is.

10. Serious Issue to Be Tried

For interim relief, the court may apply principles derived from the familiar injunction framework.

The applicant generally needs to demonstrate a genuine legal issue rather than a frivolous claim.

The DIFC Courts have referred to American Cyanamid principles in this context.

Questions include:

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
2. Is damages an adequate remedy?
3. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
4. Is interim protection necessary?

11. Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings

The non-contractual ground is particularly important where there is no clear exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Proceedings may be considered problematic where they:

• unnecessarily duplicate existing proceedings;
• harass the defendant;
• impose disproportionate costs;
• seek inconsistent judgments;
• undermine an agreed dispute-resolution mechanism;
• interfere with the proper administration of justice.

However, parallel litigation alone is not automatically vexatious or oppressive.

The applicant must demonstrate something more.

This was emphasised in ED&F Man Capital Markets MENA Ltd v Sayyed Hussain & Others, where the DIFC Court rejected an anti-suit application because the foreign proceedings involved different parties and different relief and therefore had not been shown to be vexatious or oppressive.

12. Judicial Comity

Judicial comity is one of the most important limitations.

It means that one court should generally respect the jurisdiction and judicial processes of another competent court.

An ASI therefore creates tension:

Party autonomy and contractual rights

versus

Respect for another court's jurisdiction.

The DIFC Courts have recognised this tension.

In Ledger v Leeor, the Court emphasised that where the arbitration seat was outside the DIFC, the DIFC Court should be cautious about interfering with proceedings before the Dubai Courts.

13. Anti-Suit Injunction Does Not Directly Control the Foreign Judge

An important conceptual point is that the injunction normally operates against the litigant.

For example:

“B must not continue proceedings in Court X.”

It does not ordinarily mean:

“Court X must stop hearing the case.”

The practical effect may nevertheless be substantial because B risks contempt proceedings if B disobeys the injunction.

14. Consequences of Breach

An anti-suit injunction is a court order.

Failure to comply may result in:

• contempt proceedings;
• fines;
• enforcement measures;
• asset-related consequences;
• other sanctions permitted by the relevant court.

Recent DIFC orders expressly warn that disobedience of an anti-suit injunction may lead to contempt, fines or asset seizure.

15. Anti-Suit and Anti-Arbitration Injunctions

These should not be confused.

Anti-suit injunction

Restrains court litigation.

Anti-arbitration injunction

Restrains arbitration proceedings.

For example:

ASI:

“Do not continue proceedings in the Dubai Courts.”

Anti-arbitration injunction:

“Do not continue the arbitration.”

The legal considerations can overlap but are not identical.

16. Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement Relief

Another distinction is between:

Anti-suit injunction

Stops or restrains foreign proceedings.

Anti-enforcement injunction

Restricts enforcement of a foreign judgment or award.

The latter involves additional considerations concerning:

• finality;
• recognition;
• public policy;
• enforcement conventions;
• jurisdiction;
• international comity.

17. UAE Civil-Law Contract Principles

Although the DIFC jurisprudence is central, ordinary UAE contractual principles remain important in disputes involving onshore contracts.

The court may need to determine:

• whether a contract exists;
• whether the arbitration clause is valid;
• whether the parties agreed to exclusive jurisdiction;
• whether a party breached the contract;
• whether notice requirements were satisfied;
• whether the dispute falls within the clause.

The UAE's new Civil Transactions Law, effective 1 June 2026, provides the current civil-law backdrop for ordinary UAE civil transactions.

Older UAE Supreme Court decisions applying the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law remain useful as jurisprudential guidance but should not be treated automatically as direct interpretations of the 2025 Code.

18. Anti-Suit Injunction and Arbitration Clauses

Consider:

“Any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be finally settled by arbitration seated in the DIFC.”

Party A starts proceedings in the Dubai Courts.

Party B can potentially argue:

1. there is a valid arbitration agreement;
2. DIFC is the agreed seat;
3. the Dubai proceedings breach the arbitration agreement;
4. the DIFC Court is the supervisory court;
5. the negative promise not to litigate elsewhere should be enforced.

This is the strongest category of UAE ASI case.

19. Anti-Suit Injunction and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

Suppose a contract provides:

“The DIFC Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.”

A party subsequently commences proceedings in another country.

The DIFC Court may consider an injunction to protect the contractual bargain.

The court will still examine:

• wording;
• scope;
• parties;
• applicable law;
• whether the foreign proceedings concern the same dispute;
• whether the clause is exclusive or merely permissive.

20. Anti-Suit Injunction and Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction

A clause saying:

“The DIFC Courts have jurisdiction”

is not necessarily equivalent to:

“The DIFC Courts have exclusive jurisdiction.”

The distinction can be decisive.

In Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Horizon Energy LLC, the DIFC Court considered a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause and the allegation that foreign proceedings were unconscionable. The Court referred to the requirement that the pursuit of the other proceedings be oppressive, vexatious or otherwise sufficiently improper.

21. Case Law

Case 1 — Hayri International LLC v Hazim Telecom Private Ltd, [2016] DIFC ARB-010

This is a foundational DIFC anti-suit authority.

The dispute concerned arbitration and the court's ability to provide supportive relief.

The Court held that where the DIFC is the seat, the DIFC Court has supervisory jurisdiction and can grant interim anti-suit relief.

It also recognised that the court could potentially possess supportive jurisdiction even where the seat was non-DIFC Dubai, although such jurisdiction would be exercised only rarely.

Principle

The seat of arbitration is central to the court's power and discretion.

22. Case 2 — Brookfield Multiplex Constructions LLC v DIFC Investments LLC & DIFC Authority, [2016] DIFC CFI 020

This is one of the most important UAE anti-suit cases.

The DIFC Court explained the distinction between:

• supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration; and
• supportive jurisdiction enforcing the parties' contractual agreement to arbitrate.

The Court held that an anti-suit injunction protects the negative promise contained in an arbitration agreement.

Where DIFC is the seat, the court has a particularly strong basis for protecting the agreement.

Principle

An arbitration agreement is not merely a positive promise to arbitrate; it also creates an enforceable negative obligation not to litigate elsewhere.

23. Case 3 — Emirates NBD Bank & Others v KBBO CPG Investment LLC & Others, [2020] DIFC CFI 045

This is a major authority concerning anti-suit relief against proceedings in the non-DIFC Dubai Courts.

The DIFC Court accepted that it could issue an anti-suit injunction restraining parties from pursuing proceedings in the Dubai Courts where the relevant requirements were established.

The case involved an exclusive jurisdiction clause and conduct characterised as vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable.

Principle

The DIFC Court can, in appropriate circumstances, protect an exclusive jurisdiction agreement even where the competing proceedings are before the onshore Dubai Courts.

24. Case 4 — ED&F Man Capital Markets MENA Ltd v Sayyed Hussain & Others, [2018] DIFC CFI 015

This case is particularly useful because the anti-suit application failed.

The defendants alleged that proceedings in the United States were vexatious and oppressive.

The Court found important differences between the proceedings, including:

• different parties;
• different relief;
• different factual scope.

The Court therefore did not find the necessary level of vexatious or oppressive conduct.

Principle

Parallel foreign proceedings do not automatically justify an anti-suit injunction.

25. Case 5 — Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Horizon Energy LLC & Al Buhaira International Shipping Inc, [2021] DIFC CFI 098

The DIFC Court considered an application concerning proceedings in another jurisdiction and the alleged unconscionable pursuit of foreign litigation.

The Court referred to the common-law approach under which an ASI may be justified where foreign proceedings are sufficiently:

• oppressive;
• vexatious; or
• interfering with the due administration of justice.

Principle

The remedy is exceptional and requires more than ordinary parallel litigation.

26. Case 6 — Ledger v Leeor, [2022] DIFC CFI / [2022] DIFC CA 013

This is an especially important authority concerning DIFC versus non-DIFC Dubai arbitration seats.

The claimant sought to restrain Dubai Court proceedings on the basis that the parties had agreed to arbitration.

The Court of First Instance refused interim anti-suit relief.

The Court emphasised that where the seat was Dubai outside the DIFC:

• the DIFC Court should be cautious;
• the Dubai Courts were already seized of the matter;
• comity mattered;
• the DIFC Court should not simply interfere because a party was dissatisfied with the Dubai Court process.

The DIFC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the refusal of interim relief.

Principle

If the parties selected a non-DIFC Dubai seat, the DIFC Court will generally not use anti-suit relief simply to override the chosen supervisory court.

27. Case 7 — Narciso v Nash, [2024] DIFC ARB 009

This is a significant modern authority.

The claimant sought an interim anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration.

The Court considered:

• jurisdiction;
• validity of the arbitration agreement;
• possible abandonment;
• the applicable law of the arbitration agreement;
• the seat;
• American Cyanamid principles;
• balance of convenience;
• vexatious/oppressive proceedings.

The Court ultimately concluded that the anti-suit injunction was not justified on the facts.

Principle

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction to consider anti-suit relief, but jurisdiction does not mean that relief must be granted.

The remedy remains discretionary and fact-sensitive.

28. Case 8 — Naqid v Najam, [2024] DIFC ARB 004

This case involved an Indian arbitral award and subsequent proceedings in the onshore Dubai Courts seeking to annul the award.

The claimant sought an anti-suit injunction restraining the Dubai proceedings.

However, the Dubai proceedings had already been dismissed.

The DIFC Court dismissed the anti-suit application and declined to assume that the application would necessarily have succeeded on the merits.

Principle

An ASI application can become moot when the allegedly offending foreign proceedings have already ended.

The Court also emphasised that the mere existence of parallel proceedings does not guarantee anti-suit relief.

29. Case 9 — KJM Marine LLC & Others v KJM Marine LLC & Others, [2024] DIFC CFI 068

This case provides a useful modern formulation of the governing principles.

The DIFC Court expressly recognised two grounds:

Contractual ground

Protection of a substantive right not to be sued elsewhere because proceedings breach:

• a jurisdiction agreement; or
• an arbitration agreement.

Non-contractual ground

Where the foreign proceedings are:

• vexatious;
• oppressive; or
• unconscionable.

The Court also confirmed that the remedy is discretionary and that an interim applicant faces a demanding evidentiary threshold.

30. Case 10 — Paul v Paxton, ARB 010/2026

This is a particularly recent example.

The DIFC Court granted an anti-suit injunction concerning proceedings in the Dubai Courts arising from an attempt to challenge an arbitral award.

The injunction was initially granted without notice and subsequently continued.

The defendant later sought to set aside or vary the order, but that application was dismissed.

Principle

The modern DIFC Courts continue to use anti-suit injunctions where necessary to protect arbitration and the DIFC Court's jurisdiction.

This demonstrates that anti-suit relief remains a live and practically significant remedy in 2026.

31. Case-Law Summary

32. Anti-Suit Injunction Decision-Making Framework

A UAE/DIFC court can approach an ASI application approximately as follows:

Step 1 — Identify the competing proceedings

What foreign or other UAE proceedings are being challenged?

Step 2 — Identify the contractual arrangement

Is there:

• arbitration?
• exclusive jurisdiction?
• exclusive forum?
• another dispute-resolution clause?

Step 3 — Determine the seat

If arbitration is involved:

Where is the seat?

This may determine the supervisory court.

Step 4 — Determine whether the agreement binds the parties

Are the parties actually bound?

Step 5 — Determine whether the proceedings breach the agreement

Does the foreign litigation fall within the arbitration or jurisdiction clause?

Step 6 — Consider vexatious/oppressive conduct

If there is no sufficient contractual basis, is the foreign litigation nevertheless abusive?

Step 7 — Consider comity

Would intervention improperly interfere with another competent court?

Step 8 — Apply interim-injunction principles

Consider:

• serious issue;
• adequacy of damages;
• balance of convenience;
• urgency.

Step 9 — Frame the order carefully

The order should identify precisely what the respondent is prohibited from doing.

Step 10 — Consider enforcement/contempt

The applicant should understand the consequences of disobedience.

33. Anti-Suit Injunction and the DIFC–Dubai Relationship

This is a particularly important UAE issue.

The DIFC Courts and Dubai Courts are not simply foreign courts to one another.

They form distinct judicial systems within the same emirate.

Therefore, when a DIFC Court is asked to restrain proceedings in the Dubai Courts, questions of:

• judicial comity;
• jurisdiction;
• the Joint Judicial Committee;
• seat of arbitration;
• allocation of jurisdiction

can become highly significant.

This explains why Ledger v Leeor is important.

The DIFC Court specifically refused to interfere merely because the party was dissatisfied with the progress of the Dubai proceedings.

34. Anti-Suit Injunction and the Joint Judicial Committee

Where there is a jurisdictional conflict between the DIFC and Dubai judicial systems, the Joint Judicial Committee (JJC) may become relevant.

An ASI application should therefore not be treated as a mechanism for automatically bypassing the UAE's institutional allocation of jurisdiction.

The court may consider whether:

• the JJC has been approached;
• a stay has been sought;
• the competing court has ruled on jurisdiction;
• appeals remain available;
• the dispute concerns the proper forum.

35. Anti-Suit Injunction and Foreign Courts

The strongest international ASI situation is often:

UAE/DIFC arbitration agreement → party commences foreign litigation.

For example:

DIFC arbitration clause → defendant starts proceedings in England/India/USA.

The DIFC Court may examine whether the foreign proceedings breach the arbitration agreement.

However, the court will still consider:

• whether DIFC is the seat;
• governing law;
• scope of arbitration clause;
• parties bound;
• comity;
• procedural circumstances.

36. Anti-Suit Injunction and Foreign Arbitration

An ASI can also be relevant where a party attempts to circumvent a UAE court's exclusive jurisdiction by commencing arbitration elsewhere.

For example:

Contract gives exclusive jurisdiction to DIFC Courts.

Party subsequently starts arbitration in another jurisdiction.

The legal question becomes whether the arbitration itself violates the contractual allocation of dispute resolution.

37. Anti-Suit Injunction and Non-Signatories

Modern commercial disputes can involve:

• parent companies;
• subsidiaries;
• guarantors;
• assignees;
• affiliates;
• beneficial owners;
• agents.

An ASI against a non-signatory therefore raises an additional question:

Is this person actually bound by the arbitration or jurisdiction agreement?

The court should not assume that corporate affiliation automatically creates contractual consent.

38. Anti-Suit Injunction and Arbitration Agreement Validity

A respondent may argue:

• arbitration agreement is invalid;
• signatory lacked authority;
• agreement expired;
• arbitration clause was terminated;
• dispute is outside its scope;
• non-signatory is not bound.

These arguments can be decisive.

In Narciso v Nash, the Court specifically considered arguments concerning validity, abandonment and termination of the arbitration agreement when assessing anti-suit relief.

39. Anti-Suit Injunction and Electronic Contracts

Modern UAE disputes may involve arbitration or jurisdiction agreements contained in:

• electronic contracts;
• online terms;
• digital signatures;
• platform agreements;
• smart contracts;
• email exchanges.

The court may therefore need to determine:

• whether consent was valid;
• whether terms were incorporated;
• who accepted them;
• whether the arbitration clause was adequately incorporated;
• whether electronic evidence proves acceptance.

40. Anti-Suit Injunction and Public Policy

An ASI cannot be treated as a mechanism for defeating mandatory UAE public policy.

The court may consider whether granting relief would:

• conflict with mandatory law;
• interfere improperly with another court's jurisdiction;
• undermine statutory rights;
• prejudice third parties;
• produce an unacceptable procedural result.

Thus, party autonomy is powerful but not unlimited.

41. Difference Between Stay and Anti-Suit Injunction

These remedies operate differently.

Stay

A court stops or suspends its own proceedings.

Anti-suit injunction

A court restrains a party from pursuing proceedings elsewhere.

Example:

Dubai Court: may stay its own proceedings.

DIFC Court: may order a party not to continue Dubai proceedings in appropriate circumstances.

This distinction is fundamental.

42. Difference Between Anti-Suit and Anti-Enforcement

Anti-suit

Stops foreign proceedings.

Anti-enforcement

Restrains enforcement of an already-issued judgment or award.

Therefore, once a foreign court has already issued a final judgment, an anti-suit injunction may no longer be the correct procedural remedy.

Recognition and enforcement law may instead become central.

43. Practical Example

Suppose a UAE company and an international company enter into:

“All disputes shall be resolved by DIFC-seated arbitration.”

A dispute arises.

The international company starts proceedings in a foreign court.

The UAE company can consider applying to the DIFC Court.

It should provide:

1. the signed contract;
2. arbitration clause;
3. evidence identifying DIFC as seat;
4. evidence of foreign proceedings;
5. pleadings from the foreign case;
6. proof that the dispute falls within the arbitration clause;
7. evidence of urgency;
8. explanation of why damages are inadequate;
9. evidence of the risk of inconsistent proceedings.

The court will then consider whether anti-suit relief is justified.

44. Key Limitations

An applicant should not assume an injunction will be granted simply because:

• there are parallel proceedings;
• arbitration exists;
• litigation is inconvenient;
• foreign proceedings are expensive;
• the applicant prefers DIFC;
• the foreign court may interpret the contract differently.

The applicant should establish a proper legal basis for intervention.

45. Current Legal Position

The modern UAE position can be summarised as follows:

Onshore UAE Courts

The traditional UAE civil-law system does not have an identical, general English-style anti-suit injunction jurisdiction.

DIFC Courts

The DIFC Courts clearly recognise anti-suit injunction jurisdiction and have developed detailed jurisprudence.

Arbitration

The strongest cases generally involve protection of a valid arbitration agreement, particularly where DIFC is the agreed seat.

Exclusive jurisdiction

An exclusive jurisdiction clause can provide another strong contractual basis.

Abuse

Where no contractual basis exists, sufficiently vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable conduct may justify intervention.

Comity

Intervention remains discretionary and must respect the jurisdiction of other competent courts.

46. Conclusion

The UAE anti-suit injunction doctrine is a specialised and evolving area of private international law and arbitration, particularly developed through the DIFC Courts.

The central principle is:

A party that has contractually promised to arbitrate or litigate exclusively in a particular forum should generally be held to that promise, subject to jurisdiction, public policy, comity and the court's discretion.

The most important propositions are:

1. DIFC Courts possess jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in appropriate cases.
2. The remedy can protect arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
3. The seat of arbitration is critically important.
4. DIFC-seated arbitration provides the strongest basis for DIFC anti-suit relief.
5. Non-DIFC Dubai-seated arbitration requires much greater caution.
6. Parallel proceedings alone do not necessarily justify an injunction.
7. Vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable conduct can provide an independent basis.
8. Judicial comity is a major limitation.
9. The remedy is discretionary rather than automatic.
10. An anti-suit injunction operates primarily against the litigant, with contempt consequences for disobedience.
11. The DIFC–Dubai relationship makes UAE cases particularly sensitive to questions of jurisdiction and institutional comity.
12. Recent decisions, including Paul v Paxton in 2026, demonstrate that the remedy remains actively used in modern UAE arbitration disputes. 

In practical terms, the strongest UAE ASI case is generally:

valid arbitration/exclusive-jurisdiction agreement + clear agreed forum/seat + proceedings brought in breach of that agreement + proper DIFC jurisdiction + strong evidence + absence of compelling comity/public-policy reasons against relief.