Law firm’s anti-suit injunction application against Dubai partner dismissed by Commercial Court

Anti-Suit Injunction Application

Mr Jalan is a senior corporate lawyer, a ‘Partner’ employed by the Middle East Regional Office in Dubai of Clyde & Co LLP ("Clyde"), for over 20 years. In 2006, he was promoted to the position of Senior Overseas Manager, which Clyde maintains is the equivalent of a Senior Equity Partner/Member of Clyde.

Mr Jalan entered into a suite of contracts with Clyde, which governed his employment relationship. These included, among other things, (i) a contract setting out the terms of his employment, which was governed by UAE law but included a London-seated arbitration clause (the "Arbitration Clause"); and (ii) a contract, filed with the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation ("MOHRE"), which provided that the parties agreed to abide by UAE labour law and that any condition of Mr Jalan's employment which violated the UAE law was null and void (the "MOHRE Contract"). The parties continued to enter into subsequent MOHRE Contracts across the course of Mr Jalan's 20 year plus employment relationship with Clyde.

As a matter of UAE law all employment contracts in the Dubai onshore area (where Clyde is located) must be registered with MOHRE; where an employment dispute arises, employers and employees must submit a complaint to MOHRE; employment disputes are not capable of arbitration; and any provision of an employment contract which contravenes UAE labour law is void.

A dispute arose between Mr Jalan and Clyde over his remuneration under his employment relationship with Clyde. In accordance with the MOHRE Contract and UAE law, Mr Jalan brought a complaint to MOHRE and then issued proceedings before the Dubai Labour Court (the "Dubai Proceedings"). Clyde brought an anti-suit injunction application in England on the basis that by proceeding with the Dubai Proceedings Mr Jalan was in breach of the Arbitration Clause. Clyde's position was that the MOHRE Contracts did not represent the parties' actual intention but were formalities which were entered into to enable Mr Jalan to work in Dubai (§§64-65).

By a judgment initially handed down in private on 26 February 2026 (“the Judgment”), Mr Justice Michael Green held that:

1. There was no high probability that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in circumstances where the contracts governing the employment relationship conflicted and where the parties repeatedly entered into the MOHRE Contracts, pursuant to which they agreed to abide by UAE labour law (§§76-77).
2. If there had been a high probability of there being a valid arbitration agreement, he would have found that the dispute was in principle arbitrable (§84).
3. Nevertheless, even if there had been a high probability of there being a valid arbitration agreement, he would have found that it would not be just and convenient to grant the injunction, having regard to the particular employment relationship between Mr Jalan and Clyde (§88) and the fact that Clyde deliberately chose to make Mr Jalan an employee and not a partner, and so was required to abide by UAE law (§91).

Publication of Judgments

Clyde sought to restrain publication of the Judgment on the basis that it was an arbitration claim and had been heard in private. On 9 March 2026 the Judge handed down a consequentials judgment [2026] EWHC 534 (Comm).

The Judge found that, having regard to the general principles set out by Mance LJ in Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2005] QB 207 concerning publication of arbitration judgments, there was no basis to depart from the principle of open justice in circumstances where:

1. The Judge had found that there was no high probability of there being a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement (§15).
2. There was no significant confidential information disclosed in the Judgment (§16).
3. It was both important for the public interest that the Judgment be available for public scrutiny and to be used as precedent and for Mr Jalan to be allowed to refer to and share the Judgment (§17).

Both judgments were published today, 17 March 2026, and are available here and here.

Diya Sen Gupta KC and Marlena Valles, instructed by Evie Meleagros, Kate Felmingham and Gia Andreou of Fox Williams LLP, acted for Mr Jalan.