Executive Summary
The case concerns malicious prosecution claims brought by Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC and related BVI companies against several defendants, including members of the Al Sari family and associated entities, regarding two sets of proceedings initiated in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). The claims allege that the defendants maliciously prosecuted tenancy and property-related proceedings, causing financial losses primarily through legal fees and delays in recovering English property assets. The court focused on the applicable law, debating whether English, UAE, or DIFC law governs the claims, with particular attention to Rome II Regulation Article 4(1). The judgment clarifies that DIFC law does not recognize malicious prosecution torts, and the applicable law is contested between English and UAE law.
Sanctions Highlights
— No sanctions implications identified in the case.
Emerging Risks
- Legal uncertainty over applicable law (English vs. UAE law) in cross-jurisdictional tort claims involving DIFC proceedings may increase litigation complexity and costs.
- Potential delays in asset recovery in England and Wales due to ongoing malicious prosecution claims could affect property market participants and investors.
- The withdrawal of legal representation by some defendants (PCB Defendants) may signal strategic litigation risks or resource constraints.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case highlights legal friction points between the UAE (including DIFC jurisdiction) and English courts, reflecting broader EU, UK, and UAE interactions in commercial dispute resolution.
- The involvement of entities from the UAE, UK, and EU jurisdictions underscores the importance of harmonizing cross-border legal frameworks, particularly regarding tort law and jurisdictional rules.
- The judgment’s reliance on EU-derived Rome II Regulation and Lugano Convention principles illustrates ongoing EU legal influence on UK commercial law post-Brexit.
Economic Intelligence
- The claimants seek recovery of substantial legal fees incurred in multiple jurisdictions (UAE, DIFC, England, Australia), indicating significant cross-border legal expenditure.
- Delays in recovering the Bridge Properties in England and Wales may result in user damages, reduced market value, and lost proceeds, impacting real estate investment returns.
- The case underscores the financial risks of complex international commercial litigation involving Middle Eastern and Western jurisdictions.
Strategic Recommendations
- Litigants and counsel should carefully assess the applicable law in cross-jurisdictional tort claims, particularly where DIFC proceedings intersect with English property interests.
- Financial institutions and investors operating across UAE and UK jurisdictions should monitor evolving case law on malicious prosecution and unlawful means conspiracy claims to mitigate litigation exposure.
- Legal teams should prepare for protracted disputes involving multiple jurisdictions and consider early settlement or alternative dispute resolution to limit costs and delays.
- Policymakers and legal practitioners in the UAE, UK, and EU should pursue clearer harmonization of tort law principles and jurisdictional rules to reduce cross-border legal uncertainty.
---
**Source Notes:** Sanctions Intelligence Digest, [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/400.txt](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/400.txt)