In a decision dated 22 May 2025, the High Court of Justice refused to stay the enforcement of four arbitral awards secured in 2023 by the UAE company Deinon Insurance Brokers LLC against K.M. Dastur Holdings Limited and Mr. Colin Reen following disputes relating to loans.<\/p>\n
The debtors had already unsuccessfully challenged these awards before the English courts. In this instance, they invoked a parallel dispute brought in Dubai by Mr. Eric Dastur, director of KMDH, seeking recognition of his status as the true beneficiary of Deinon. In their view, until this action had been decided, enforcement in England risked leading to the payment of funds to a \u201cfalse beneficiary.\u201d<\/p>\n
The High Court rejected this argument, pointing out that a stay of execution is only possible in \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d as defined in the Civil Procedure Rules. In this case, however, the proceedings in Dubai were solely intended to circumvent the enforcement of final awards, as the debtors had already used up their remedies in England. The same property arguments had been raised and rejected both before the arbitral tribunal and before the English courts.<\/p>\n
In the Court’s view, only the courts of the seat of arbitration have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of an award; appeals brought elsewhere therefore constitute a collateral attack incompatible with the principles of English arbitration law.<\/p>\n
This decision illustrates the consistency of the English courts in guaranteeing the purpose and effectiveness of arbitral awards and preventing parallel proceedings abroad from being used to delay their enforcement.<\/p>\n