Order With Reasons · Arbitration Division
ARB 015/2026 ARB 027/2026 Princeton v Persephone
A reference record of ARB 015/2026, drawn from the decision's own text. It sets out who the parties were, who decided it, what the decision did and where to read it. It does not summarise the court's reasoning or offer advice on it.
Where cases like this arise in our work: Arbitration
At a glance
| Claim number | ARB 015/2026 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Arbitration Division |
| Decision | Order With Reasons |
| Before | H.E. Justice Mark Pelling |
| Date | 21 September 2026 |
| Date of issue | 21 September 2026 |
| Operative orders | 1 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 38 |
| Recitals | 11 |
Parties to ARB 015/2026
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Princeton | Claimant/Applicant In Arb-015-2026 |
| Persephone | Defendant/Respondent In Arb-015-2026 |
Decisions in ARB 015/2026
The DIFC Courts have published 2 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 14 August 2026 | Order |
| 21 September 2026 | Order |
Sums named in the order with reasons
These figures appear in the text of the decision. They are reproduced as amounts only — what each relates to is set out in the judgment itself.
- AED 1,340,910.95
- USD 10,000
- USD 50,000
- USD 250,000
- AED 3746
- AED 1450
Authorities cited in ARB 015/2026
The decision refers to the following. They are listed as cited — what each was relied on for is set out in the decision itself.
Legislation and practice directions
- DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008 DIFC law
- Arbitration Law DIFC law
- Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014 Practice Direction
- Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017 Practice Direction
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 1.6, RDC 4.2, RDC 38.18, RDC 38.40, RDC 43.62, RDC 44.4, RDC 45.20 — see the RDC.
Other decisions citing the same authority
Records of other DIFC Courts decisions that cite at least one of the same instruments. Shared authority is not shared reasoning — each decision turns on its own facts.
- ARB 034/2026 — ARB 034/2026 Pippa v Phineas also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
- ARB 053/2025 — ARB 053/2025 ARB 054/2025 Olan v Obelix also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
- CA 006/2025 — Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006 also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
- ARB 043/2025 — ARB 043/2025 Oratio v Orangia also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
- CFI 071/2025 — CFI 071/2025 Agro Resource Tarim Gida IC Ve DIS Ti̇caret A.S. v Prom also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
- ARB 014/2025 — ARB 014/2025 (1) Obert (2) Ona v Ondray also cites DIFC Law No. 1 of 2008
Primary source
Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.
Acting on a arbitration division matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question ARB 015/2026 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.