Emirates NBD is suing Rashed Abdulaziz Almakhawi and his three children in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts for about $90M. It alleges that assets were moved to the children to frustrate enforcement of Dubai and English judgments on his personal guarantee. The court upheld its jurisdiction and granted a worldwide freezing order in April 2026, and the DIFC Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in July 2026.
Latest development Jul 2, 2026
On July 2, 2026, Chief Justice Wayne Martin, sitting in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of Appeal, refused Abdulaziz Almakhawi permission to appeal. He rejected grounds on jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and the worldwide freezing order, and awarded costs to the bank. The jurisdiction ruling and the freezing order stand, and the claim continues in the Court of First Instance.
Why it matters
The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts held that they cannot decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of the onshore Dubai courts. The ruling affects banks that are DIFC establishments and are pursuing judgment debtors in the Gulf.
Background
Rashed Abdulaziz Almakhawi personally guaranteed lending by Emirates NBD Bank PJSC (Emirates NBD) to System Construct LLC, a company he originally owned that went into liquidation in September 2014. On or about July 7, 2019, the bank obtained a Dubai Court of Cassation judgment against him for about 211.3 million dirhams (about $57.5M) plus interest. The bank then pursued him in England, and on May 12, 2023, the High Court in London declared the Dubai judgment enforceable. It also upheld the bank’s challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to his 2019 transfers of a London property and about £2.5M to his son Abdulaziz. The judge found that at least one purpose was to protect assets from his creditors.
On April 10, 2025, Emirates NBD sued Almakhawi and his children Abdulaziz, Hessa, and Shamma in the Courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC Courts), seeking about $90M. The bank alleges that trust funds, properties, and company shares were moved to the children to frustrate enforcement of the Dubai and English judgments. It claims damages under the UAE Civil Code and asks the court to unwind the transfers and declare some of them shams. The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
On April 3, 2026, Justice Michael Black of the DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed the jurisdiction challenges and granted a worldwide freezing order. He held that the bank is a DIFC establishment and that the DIFC Courts cannot decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of the onshore Dubai courts. On April 17, 2026, he made an unless order requiring Abdulaziz to give asset disclosure. In June 2026, the DIFC Courts rejected Rashed Almakhawi’s application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain related proceedings brought by the bank.
On July 2, 2026, Chief Justice Wayne Martin, sitting in the DIFC Court of Appeal, refused Abdulaziz permission to appeal. The claim continues in the Court of First Instance.
Timeline 9 events
-
AppealDIFC Court of Appeal refuses Abdulaziz Almakhawi permission to appeal
Chief Justice Wayne Martin rejected grounds on jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and the worldwide freezing order, with costs to the bank.
-
OrderDIFC court rejects Rashed Almakhawi’s anti-suit injunction bid
Rashed Almakhawi’s application to restrain Emirates NBD’s related proceedings failed, allowing the DIFC case to continue.
Almakhawi's anti-suit bid against Emirates NBD fails in $88 million legal dispute
-
OrderJustice Michael Black makes unless order against Abdulaziz Almakhawi
The order barred him from defending unless he gave asset disclosure by April 20, 2026. The judge also refused permission to appeal and ordered further disclosure.
-
JudgmentDIFC court upholds jurisdiction and grants worldwide freezing order
Justice Michael Black held that the bank is a DIFC establishment and that forum non conveniens cannot be used to defer to the onshore Dubai courts.
-
HearingJustice Michael Black hears jurisdiction and freezing order applications
The defendants challenged jurisdiction and the bank sought a worldwide freezing order at a remote hearing.
-
FilingEmirates NBD sues Almakhawi and his three children in the DIFC Courts
The bank seeks about $90M and alleges that assets were moved to the children to frustrate enforcement of its judgments.
-
JudgmentHigh Court in London enforces the Dubai judgment against Almakhawi
David Edwards KC also upheld the bank’s section 423 challenge to the 2019 transfers of a London property and about £2.5M to Almakhawi’s son.
-
JudgmentDubai Court of Cassation rules for Emirates NBD on Almakhawi’s guarantee
The judgment, for about 211.3 million dirhams (about $57.5M) plus interest, became final after Almakhawi exhausted his appeals.
-
OtherSystem Construct, the borrower Almakhawi guaranteed, goes into liquidation
System Construct LLC defaulted on facilities from Emirates NBD that Almakhawi had personally guaranteed.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the DIFC Courts enter a merits judgment for Emirates NBD, dismiss its claim, or record a settlement by April 30, 2028?
- Bank wins judgment against a defendant45%
- Still pending on April 30, 202833%
- Bank settles with Almakhawis16%
- Claim against all Almakhawis fails6%
- Resolves by
- Apr 30, 2028in 18 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome is that Emirates NBD obtains a DIFC judgment against at least one Almakhawi defendant by April 30, 2028 (45%). The bank has won every contested step so far, including jurisdiction, a worldwide freezing order, an unless order, and a refusal of permission to appeal. A London court has also already found an earlier transfer to the son was made to defeat creditors.
How it resolves. Resolves “Bank wins judgment” if, by April 30, 2028, the DIFC Court of First Instance enters any final judgment for Emirates NBD against at least one defendant on the substance of the asset-transfer claim. This includes default, summary, or post-trial judgment, and it applies even if other defendants are released. Resolves “Claim against all Almakhawis fails” if the claim is dismissed, struck out, or discontinued against all four defendants without any judgment for the bank. Resolves “Bank settles with Almakhawis” if a public consent order, settlement, or court record shows the claim resolved by agreement against all remaining defendants, with no prior judgment for the bank. Otherwise resolves “Still pending.” The status as of April 30, 2028, controls, based on DIFC Courts judgments and orders or reliable press reports.
Reasoning
Starting point. Creditor claims to unwind asset transfers that survive jurisdiction challenges and obtain worldwide freezing orders in common-law commercial courts: Roughly 60-70% of such claims end in a creditor judgment or creditor-favorable settlement once a freezing order is in place. Few are dismissed outright, but many take two to three years from filing to resolve.
Creditor claims that clear jurisdiction and secure a worldwide freezing order usually end in a creditor judgment or settlement, with outright dismissal rare, often under 10%. This record is strongly favorable to the bank: the Court of First Instance upheld jurisdiction, granted a freezing order, made an unless order against Abdulaziz, and rejected an anti-suit bid, and the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The May 2023 English section 423 finding about transfers to the son supports the bank’s narrative, although the DIFC claim rests on UAE Civil Code damages and sham allegations. The unless order also creates a route to default judgment against Abdulaziz if he failed to give disclosure, but the record does not say whether he complied. Timing is the main uncertainty because the claim has four defendants, assets across several jurisdictions, and a long history of resistance. A full trial could therefore slip past April 2028. Settlement is plausible because the freezing order raises the cost of fighting on, but more than a decade of enforcement resistance suggests the defendants may hold out. The leading alternative to a bank judgment is that the case remains in disclosure or pretrial stages on the resolve date.
Bank has won every contested ruling, including on appeal · Unless order opens a possible default route against Abdulaziz · Prior English finding of creditor-defeating transfers · Multi-defendant, cross-border case may delay trial past 2028 · Freezing order raises defendants’ cost of continued resistance
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 18, 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