The High Court of England and Wales has refused to grant an anti-suit injunction sought by law firm Clyde & Co to restrain proceedings initiated by its Dubai-based partner, Abhimanyu Jalan, before the Dubai Labour Court in a remuneration dispute.
Justice Michael Green held that Clyde & Co had failed to establish a sufficiently high probability of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement governing the dispute. The firm had contended that Jalan was bound by an English-seated arbitration clause and should be restrained from pursuing remedies under UAE labour law. However, the Court found that the overall contractual framework, including employment contracts registered with UAE authorities, indicated that UAE labour law governed the employment relationship and contemplated resolution of disputes through local statutory mechanisms.
The Court made pointed observations on the firm’s conduct during the dispute. It noted that Clyde & Co had given Jalan 48 hours to withdraw his complaint filed under UAE law and had withheld all remuneration above his base salary of £12,000 per month. The Court described this as “a somewhat extraordinary way to treat” a senior individual who had effectively held a partner-equivalent role for nearly two decades, and questioned the basis on which such unilateral action could be taken.
It also took note of threats of removal from the firm if Jalan continued with the Dubai proceedings, as well as assertions raising concerns about his performance. The Court observed that such conduct weighed against the grant of discretionary relief. Further, it expressed concern over the allegation made on behalf of Clyde & Co that Jalan had lied in his witness statement, remarking that it did not understand why such a serious allegation had been advanced at that stage.
In a subsequent ruling on consequential matters, the Court rejected Clyde & Co’s request to keep the judgment confidential, emphasising that there was no compelling reason to depart from the principle of open justice, particularly where no enforceable arbitration agreement had been found. The Court also refused permission to appeal, holding that there was no real prospect of successfully challenging its findings or the exercise of discretion.
The Court ordered Clyde & Co to pay Jalan’s costs, including an interim payment of £173,693.17 on account, with the balance to be assessed on the standard basis.
The dispute arises from Jalan’s claim regarding bonus and remuneration, including allegations relating to his position in the firm’s lockstep system. Proceedings before the Dubai Labour Court are ongoing.