Jurisdiction is often the first and most important dispute in litigation, yet it is rarely the dispute the parties expect. Before the Court can consider the merits of a claim, it must first determine whether the dispute properly belongs before it. That question is not a formality. A successful jurisdictional objection brings the proceedings to an end before the merits are ever examined. Within the DIFC Courts, the Court’s authority now comes from Article 14 of Dubai Law No. (2) of 2025 Concerning the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (“DIFC Courts Law”). The method of challenge remains RDC Part 12. This article examines how those two instruments work together and what the decided cases require of a defendant who wants the objection to be heard. Authorities decided under Article 5 of Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004 (“Judicial Authority Law”) remain relevant to construction. The statutory hook is now Article 14.
Part 12 is the route, not the source
RDC Part 12 is often spoken of as though it determines the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. In truth, it does something narrower but equally important: it controls how jurisdiction may be challenged. The Court’s authority comes from Article 14 of the DIFC Courts Law. Part 12 provides the route by which a defendant may argue either that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim or that, despite having jurisdiction, it should not exercise it.
That distinction matters because a jurisdiction challenge involves two separate questions. The first is substantive: does the claim fall within one of the gateways recognised by Article 14, whether through an Article 14(A) gateway or a written opt-in under Article 14(B). The second is procedural: has the defendant raised the objection in the manner and within the time required by the RDC? A potentially strong jurisdiction argument may still be undermined if the Part 12 procedure is not followed correctly.
The Rules are structured to force the issue to the surface at the beginning of the case. A defendant wishing to challenge jurisdiction must first file an Acknowledgment of Service under Part 11 and then make a supported application within the prescribed period. Filing the acknowledgment does not, by itself, amount to submission to the Court’s jurisdiction. It instead preserves the defendant’s right to challenge, provided that the next procedural step is taken in time. If no Part 12 application follows, the defendant is generally treated as having accepted the Court’s jurisdiction.
This sequencing was in issue in Innovative Production Group FZE v Innovation Factory Royal Investment Group LLC. The Acknowledgment of Service was itself late. The Part 12 application followed subsequently. The Court examined the late filing, then decided the clause. It held that the governing-law / dispute-resolution wording satisfied Article 14(B) and that the Court had jurisdiction.
The practical lesson is straightforward. Jurisdiction is not challenged merely by denying it in correspondence, reserving rights or raising the point informally at a hearing. The objection must be made through the procedure prescribed by Part 12 and supported by evidence directed to the relevant jurisdictional gateway. Article 14 supplies the legal test; Part 12 ensures that the test is raised promptly, clearly and before the litigation advances too far.
A gateway needs facts
Article 14 may identify the routes into the DIFC Courts but pleading a gateway does not establish it. RDC 12.4 requires the application to be supported by evidence because jurisdiction usually turns on concrete connecting facts: the parties’ legal status, where a contract was negotiated or performed, where the relevant event occurred, and what terms were actually agreed.
That was central to Atul Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Zurich International Life Limited. The Court examined the defendant’s licensing history, the location of the broker, the policy documents, records of meetings and the place where the insurance proposal was accepted. It found no plausible evidential basis for concluding that the contract had been entered into or negotiated, even partly, within the DIFC.
The Court also refused to treat the DIFC presence of another company within the same corporate group as sufficient. Corporate affiliation did not turn the defendant into a DIFC Establishment and the claimant had not proved that the policy terms on which he relied formed part of the contract. The gateway failed not because the argument was impossible to formulate but because the evidence did not carry it across the threshold.
Article 14(A)(1) is concerned with claims against a DIFC Body or DIFC Establishment. It does not, without more, catch an entity that once held that status and no longer does when the claim is brought. For practitioners, the useful discipline is to build the evidence around the gateway, not the other way around. Before drafting the application, identify each jurisdictional fact that must be proved and the document or witness capable of proving it. A jurisdiction objection built largely on submissions is often a warning that the real work has not yet been done.
No magic words, but there must be words
The first instinct when reviewing a jurisdiction clause is often to search for the words “DIFC Courts”. That is useful but not decisive. In Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors. v Credit Suisse, the Court of Appeal confirmed that no prescribed formula is required. The question is what forum the parties objectively intended to choose, assessed from the words used, the agreement as a whole and the commercial setting in which it was made. Goel was decided under Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law. The construction method, objective intention from the words, the agreement as a whole and the commercial setting, is the method still used under Article 14(B) of the DIFC Courts Law.
Goel and Investment Group Private Limited v Standard Chartered Bank show how this works. References to the “courts of Dubai” or “Dubai Courts” may include the DIFC Courts because both form part of Dubai’s judicial system. Yet the result is not automatic: the same phrase must still be read against the particular contract and its surrounding circumstances. Context may reveal the meaning of the clause; it cannot replace the clause itself.
That is the line between interpretation and invention. The Court may give effect to imperfect drafting where the written words, properly understood, disclose an agreement to confer jurisdiction. It cannot construct an opt-in from commercial convenience, procedural conduct or intentions never recorded in the contract.
From a drafting perspective, there is little virtue in leaving the forum to inference. From a litigation perspective, however, the enquiry should not end simply because the clause fails to name the DIFC Courts. The real question is whether the language chosen, read fairly and commercially, is capable of carrying the parties across the Article 14(B) gateway.
Choosing the law does not choose the court
Commercial contracts often place governing law and jurisdiction beneath the same heading, which makes it tempting to treat them as a single choice. They are not. Governing law identifies the substantive law under which the dispute will be decided; jurisdiction identifies the court entitled to decide it.
In Khoury v Mashreq Bank, the agreement was governed by DIFC law, but the jurisdiction clause was asymmetric: it permitted the Bank to pursue the customer before the DIFC Courts without giving the customer the same right against the Bank. The Court of Appeal refused to use the choice of DIFC law to rewrite that bargain. Jurisdiction had to exist for the particular claim brought by the particular claimant.
Sky News Arabia FZ-LLC v Kassab Media FZ (LLC) illustrates the converse. The contract referred to UAE and Abu Dhabi law but expressly submitted disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. The chosen law did not displace that express choice of forum; the jurisdiction clause remained effective.
Showing up is not signing up
Responding to a claim does not, by itself, amount to accepting the Court’s authority. RDC 12.3 allows a defendant to acknowledge service without losing the right to dispute jurisdiction. That protection is temporary: the Part 12 application must follow within 14 days, failing which the defendant is treated as having accepted jurisdiction. Appearance preserves the objection; inaction abandons it.
The same distinction has been drawn where a claimant has tried to treat Registry correspondence, requests for time or an intention to file a defence as submission. Those steps do not supply a missing Article 14 gateway, and they are not the written opt-in required by Article 14(B).
This is where jurisdiction strategy can become untidy. A defendant may need to correspond with the Registry, seek an extension or attend a preliminary hearing while maintaining that the Court lacks jurisdiction. Those steps should be taken with a clear reservation, but the reservation is not the challenge. Only the prescribed application protects the position.
The safest course is therefore neither silence nor unrestricted participation. Engage only as necessary, bring the jurisdiction application promptly and avoid pleading the merits before the threshold issue is resolved. Showing up is permitted; drifting into the substantive dispute is where the strategy begins to unravel.
Losing the forum fight does not stop the clock
A jurisdiction challenge pauses the merits; it does not erase them. Once the objection fails, the case returns to the ordinary procedural track. The defendant must file a fresh acknowledgment of service as the original acknowledgment ceases to have effect under RDC 12.8. The next clock is the defence, not a further jurisdiction argument. There is no built-in period for the losing party to reconsider its position at leisure.
The aftermath of Innovative Production Group is instructive. After the jurisdiction challenge failed, the defendant filed an amended acknowledgment of service but did not file a defence or seek an extension. Some months later the Court entered default judgment for more than USD 2.88 million, together with accrued interest of nearly USD 700,000 and costs exceeding AED 1 million.
The figures are striking but the practical point is simpler. A defendant can become so absorbed in the forum dispute that the underlying claim is left untouched. By the time jurisdiction is decided, documents may still be uncollected, witnesses unprepared and the defence undrafted, just as the next deadline begins to run.
A Part 12 application should therefore be managed as a fork in the case, not a detour from it. The jurisdiction challenge may be the immediate priority but the merits must remain ready in reserve. A defendant who prepares only to win the application has not fully prepared for the litigation.
Do not dress the merits as jurisdiction
A jurisdiction challenge is not an early opportunity to argue that the claim is weak. Under RDC 12.1 the Court asks whether it has authority to determine the dispute, or whether it should decline to exercise that authority. It does not ask whether the claimant will ultimately prove the claim.
That is the line drawn in the cases already discussed. In Dhawan the Court tested licensing status, the place of negotiation and the documents said to form the contract. It did not try the insurance claim. In Innovative Production Group the Court construed the dispute-resolution wording against Article 14(B). It did not decide whether the underlying sporting-rights claim was good. Once a gateway is made out on the defendant’s status or on a written opt-in, disputes about who contracted, on what terms, or with what liability go to the merits.
Before invoking Part 12, separate facts that determine the Court’s authority from facts that determine the claim. If the real argument is that the claimant sued the wrong party, misunderstood the contract or cannot prove liability, the proper vehicle is a defence or an application for immediate judgment, not a jurisdiction challenge.
Power is not compulsion
Part 12 contains two objections that are often run together but should not be confused. Under RDC 12.1(1), the defendant says the Court has no jurisdiction. Under RDC 12.1(2), the defendant accepts that jurisdiction exists but argues that the Court should not exercise it. The first is about legal authority; the second is about the proper forum.
The second limb is narrower than it is sometimes pleaded. In Investment Group Private Limited v Standard Chartered Bank, the Court of Appeal held that the onshore first-seized rules do not govern the DIFC and that forum non conveniens is not available where the rival forum is another court of the UAE. Parallel proceedings remain relevant. They confer no automatic priority. Where the rival forum is outside the UAE the defendant still has to show another available forum that is clearly more appropriate, with evidence about witnesses, documents, governing law and access to justice. A client’s preference to litigate elsewhere is not, by itself, a forum argument.
Jurisdiction can fail in pieces
Part 12 applications are often presented as all-or-nothing contests. The Rules are more flexible.
RDC 12.7 already gives the Court that flexibility. It may declare that it has no jurisdiction or will not exercise it, set aside the claim form, set aside service, discharge an earlier order, or stay the proceedings. In a multi-party claim the defect may go only to one defendant, to service, or to a single cause of action. The order should follow the defect.
The order sought should therefore be as carefully considered as the objection itself. Does the defect concern the whole claim, one cause of action, one defendant, service alone, or the suitability of the forum? A sweeping request for dismissal may be less persuasive than relief precisely matched to the problem identified.
A well-built Part 12 application does not stop at saying that jurisdiction is absent. It tells the Court what should remain, what should fall away and what should happen to any orders already made. In jurisdiction work, precision in the remedy is often what turns a legal argument into a workable result.
The forum fight has a price
A jurisdiction application may be preliminary, but it is rarely inexpensive. It can require detailed evidence, contractual analysis and a contested hearing before the substantive claim has moved an inch. Under RDC Part 38, the usual rule remains that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, and the Court may consider whether it was reasonable to raise or pursue the issue at all.
The exposure can crystallise quickly. Where the hearing lasts no more than a day, the Court will generally assess the application costs immediately rather than leave them to the end of the claim. A failed challenge may therefore produce a payable costs order while the defendant is still preparing its defence.
In Innovative Production Group the costs of the failed jurisdiction application were assessed at once, in the same order that dismissed the challenge. A defendant can therefore face a payable costs order while the defence clock is already running.
The decision to invoke Part 12 should therefore be costed in both directions. A sound challenge may avoid the expense of litigating an entire claim in the wrong forum. A speculative one may achieve the opposite: an early costs order, lost momentum and a claimant entering the merits phase with its first victory already secured.
Not every jurisdiction point deserves a jurisdiction fight
The existence of an arguable objection does not mean it should be pursued. Part 12 is most effective where the jurisdictional defect is clean: the parties fall outside the statutory gateways, the relevant events occurred elsewhere, or the written bargain points clearly to another forum. Where the objection depends on strained readings, incomplete facts or arguments better suited to the merits, the application may add cost without changing the destination of the case.
The strategic assessment begins before drafting. What happens if the challenge succeeds? Can the claim be refiled elsewhere, and will that merely delay the same dispute? What happens if it fails? Is the defence ready, are the next deadlines protected, and has the client understood the likely costs exposure? A forum victory has limited value if it only relocates the dispute to a more expensive or less enforceable venue.
There is also a difference between using Part 12 decisively and using it defensively. A properly founded challenge can end proceedings early or remove claims that do not belong before the Court. A speculative application, by contrast, may reveal the defence strategy, harden the claimant’s position and give the opposing party an early costs advantage.
The better question is therefore not simply whether a jurisdiction argument can be made, but whether it improves the client’s position in the dispute as a whole. Part 12 is a powerful procedural tool, but only when the forum question is important enough and the evidence strong enough, to justify fighting the dispute before the dispute.
Final observations: jurisdiction is a discipline
Part 12 is not a procedural escape hatch. It is a disciplined mechanism for resolving, at the outset, whether the DIFC Courts are entitled and in some cases, ought to determine the dispute. The cases discussed above are firm on deadlines, demanding of evidence, and commercially realistic when construing jurisdiction clauses. They do not invent a gateway that Article 14 does not contain.
For practitioners, the work begins before the application is drafted. The relevant Article 14 gateway must be identified, the facts capable of supporting or defeating it isolated, and the evidence assembled around that enquiry. At the same time, the merits cannot be neglected: a failed challenge may return the defendant to the substantive claim with little warning and an immediate costs burden.
The strongest jurisdiction objections are therefore not necessarily the most elaborate. They are the ones that identify a genuine defect, raise it promptly and match the evidence and relief to the precise limits of the Court’s authority. The work is specific. Identify the Article 14 limb. Protect the RDC 12.4 deadline. Separate governing law from forum. Consider the options under RDC 12.7. Used that way, Part 12 decides where the dispute will be heard before the parties spend the case arguing anything else.
This publication does not provide any legal advice and is for information purposes only.