Dubai construction group ASGC is suing Innovo Holding, four of its subsidiaries, and four former ASGC senior managers in the High Court in London. It alleges they moved ASGC’s business, staff, and IT systems into Innovo. On October 9, 2026, the court refused ASGC’s bid for an interim order giving it access to those systems, and the defendants’ applications to stay the claim remain pending.
Latest development Oct 9, 2026
On October 9, 2026, Judge Richard Carter refused ASGC’s application for an interim mandatory injunction giving it access to the IT systems it says Innovo took over. He had a high degree of assurance that ASGC would establish its right to its own information, but held that access to the shared systems would expose Innovo’s confidential information. He reserved costs to the hearing of the defendants’ stay applications.
Why it matters
The English court must decide whether a dispute among three Dubai business families over a London-based group belongs in London or the UAE. The ruling shows how English courts weigh a company’s right to its own records against a rival’s confidential data on shared IT systems.
Background
ASGC, a construction group headquartered in Dubai, was founded in 1989 by Mohamed Saif Mohamed Bin Shafar and Emad Azmy Gendi Wahba. Mohammed Abdulla Mohammed Al Sayyah became a shareholder in 2013. The parent company, ASGC Holding LLC, is owned 50% by Bin Shafar, 25% by a company owned by the Azmy family, and 25% by a company owned by Al Sayyah. In October 2020, Emad Azmy’s son Bishoy Azmy set up Innovo Holding, with children of the Bin Shafar and Al Sayyah families as minority shareholders. Bishoy holds all the voting shares.
Since November 2024, Innovo Holding’s shares have been owned 43% by Bishoy, 33% by his sister Mariam Azmy, and 24% by Bin Shafar’s son Abdulaziz Bin Shafar. Lord Hammond, a former UK chancellor, chairs Innovo’s board. ASGC alleges that the individual defendants, all former senior ASGC managers, moved its companies, staff, IT systems, and data into Innovo under an “Innovo Plan” without the unconflicted shareholders’ approval. The transfers it challenges include sales of the iBuild and Solinq businesses at the nominal value of their shares and the transfer of ASGC UK. ASGC accepts that its chairman, Mohamed Saif Bin Shafar, knew of and was content with the sale of the group’s Egyptian companies for £39.9M (about $54M). City AM reported that ASGC seeks declarations that Innovo holds the companies and diverted funds on constructive trust for it, plus damages.
The defendants say the three families knew of and agreed to Innovo’s creation and its integration with ASGC, including shared IT services under cooperation agreements signed in 2022 and 2024. After the relationship broke down in 2024, ASGC Holding’s shareholders voted on December 19, 2024, to remove Abdulaziz Bin Shafar as chief executive. On January 14, 2026, the Dubai Court of Appeal held that the meeting was procedurally invalid. A second meeting, convened by Dubai’s Department of Economy and Tourism, removed him again on February 16, 2026. ASGC says it has lost access to its Microsoft, GoDaddy, Etisalat, Autodesk, and Oracle systems, cannot file audited 2024 and 2025 accounts, and is in default with its banks. City AM reported that the chairman has brought at least 10 overlapping civil and criminal proceedings in the UAE, where the public prosecutor banned the four individual defendants from travel.
ASGC sued Innovo Holding, four of its subsidiaries, and the four individual defendants in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Business and Property Courts) in April 2026. On April 9, 2026, it applied for an interim mandatory injunction giving it access to, or working copies of, those systems. On October 9, 2026, after a hearing on September 16 to 18, His Honour Judge Richard Carter dismissed the injunction application. He had a high degree of assurance that ASGC would establish its right to its own information. But the shared systems also hold Innovo’s confidential information, and he held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants. He made no findings on the stay applications that the defendants made in May 2026, and no defenses have been filed.
Timeline 10 events
-
JudgmentHigh Court refuses ASGC’s application for access to its IT systems
Judge Richard Carter held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants because access to the shared systems would expose Innovo’s confidential information. He made no findings on the stay applications and reserved costs to their hearing.
-
HearingHigh Court hears ASGC’s injunction application over three days
ASGC warned that it might collapse because it could not file accounts. At the start of the hearing, ASGC filed a consent order with Mariam Azmy and Sameh Samy Fam Khalil, whose counsel took no further part.
-
OrderAbdulaziz Bin Shafar hands ASGC 2024 financial data at the Dubai court
Hard drives with ASGC’s 2024 general ledger and other records were delivered to its UAE lawyers through an offer-and-deposit application in UAE proceedings brought by Mohamed Saif Bin Shafar. ASGC said the data was not enough to complete audited accounts.
-
HearingDefendants accuse ASGC of forum shopping at a directions hearing
City AM reported that the defendants argued ASGC had left key family members out of the English claim, creating a false impression of difference between the English and UAE cases.
-
OrderDefendants apply to stay the English claim
Between May 11 and 15, 2026, the defendants applied to stay the claim under CPR Part 11 or the court’s case management powers. Master Clark listed the injunction application to be heard first.
-
OrderASGC applies for an injunction giving it access to its IT systems
ASGC asked the court to order the defendants to give it access to, or working copies of, its Microsoft, GoDaddy, Etisalat, and Autodesk accounts. It also sought an order against interference pending trial.
-
FilingASGC sues Innovo and four former senior managers in the High Court
ASGC alleges the defendants used their positions to move its business, staff, IT systems, and data into Innovo. It seeks declarations that Innovo holds the companies and diverted funds on constructive trust, plus damages.
-
OtherSecond shareholders’ meeting removes Abdulaziz Bin Shafar again
After Abdulaziz refused to call a new meeting, Dubai’s Department of Economy and Tourism convened one at the request of Mohamed Saif Bin Shafar and Mohammed Al Sayyah. Zaher Yahya was again appointed in his place.
-
JudgmentDubai Court of Appeal rules the December 2024 meeting procedurally invalid
The Dubai Court of First Instance had rejected the challenge brought by Abdulaziz Bin Shafar and the Azmy family.
-
OtherASGC Holding shareholders remove Abdulaziz Bin Shafar as chief executive
An extraordinary general meeting replaced Abdulaziz Bin Shafar with Zaher Yahya as general manager. Abdulaziz and the Azmy family challenged the meeting in the Dubai courts.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the High Court decide the defendants’ applications to stay ASGC’s English claim by September 30, 2027?
- Court refuses stay, claim proceeds44%
- Court stays ASGC’s claim in full21%
- Still pending on September 30, 202718%
- Stay granted against some defendants11%
- ASGC settles or discontinues claim6%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome, at 44%, is that the High Court refuses the stay and lets ASGC’s claim proceed in London by September 30, 2027. The strongest reason is that defendants seeking a stay must show the UAE is clearly the more appropriate forum, a demanding test where English companies are sued.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first public High Court order or judgment on the defendants’ May 2026 stay applications (CPR Part 11 or case management) issued on or before September 30, 2027. “Refuses stay” means the claim proceeds in England against all defendants still in the case. “Stays in full” means the claim is stayed, or jurisdiction declined, against all contesting defendants. “Some defendants” covers any split or partial outcome. “Settles or discontinues” means a public settlement, consent order ending the claim, or notice of discontinuance before any stay ruling. Pending applies if none of these has occurred by that date. Later appeals do not change the resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. English commercial court applications to stay claims in favor of parallel foreign proceedings (forum non conveniens and case management stays): Roughly 30% to 40% of contested forum non conveniens or case management stay applications in the Business and Property Courts succeed. Case management stays are granted only in rare and compelling circumstances.
The base rate for contested stay applications in the Business and Property Courts is roughly 30% to 40% success, and case management stays pending foreign litigation are rarer still. Several defendants are English companies in a group that the record describes as London-based, which strengthens ASGC’s position. The court’s October 9, 2026, finding of a high degree of assurance that ASGC will establish its right to its own information suggests the claim has substance. Pointing the other way, the dispute is among three Dubai families over Dubai companies, and at least 10 overlapping UAE proceedings exist. The defendants’ forum shopping argument, that ASGC left key family members out of the English claim, could support a stay on Spiliada grounds. A split outcome is plausible because the individual defendants may have weaker English connections than the Innovo companies. Timing is a real risk. The stay applications were deferred behind the injunction, and a hearing plus reserved judgment could take most of 2027. Settlement is unlikely in the near term given the bitterness of the family dispute and the criminal proceedings in the UAE, although the Mariam Azmy consent order shows some parties will deal.
Burden on defendants to show UAE is clearly more appropriate · English incorporation and London base of Innovo companies · At least 10 parallel UAE proceedings by ASGC’s chairman · Possible split treatment of individual and corporate defendants · Listing and judgment timing for the stay hearing
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 19, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made