In addition to the enforcement proceedings, three parallel proceedings have occurred in the Dubai onshore courts:
(a) Proceedings by Farkhad for a new Dubai divorce
(b) Farkhad/Straight’s wrongful arrest claim
(c) a new arrest claim by Farkhad against Straight
1. Proceedings by Farkhad for a new Dubai divorce under Sharia law
On 19 March 2020, Farkhad brought proceedings asking the Dubai local court to grant him a talaq (divorce), and to determine Tatiana’s rights to property and alimony pursuant to Shari’a Law.
In these proceedings, Farkhad claims in particular that:
- since she has instructed a lawyer to represent her in Dubai proceedings, Tatiana is a resident of the UAE and its law on marriage applies to her.
- he is a Muslim, and that his marriage to Tatiana on 10 July 1993 was according to Sharia’a law;
- the couple were divorced in 2004, or alternatively that the Dubai court should now grant him a divorce;
Tatiana has opposed the application, in particular on the basis that:
- she is not a resident of the UAE, as she does not have a residence or place of business there;
- The couple were not divorced in 2004, and that since the English court has granted a divorce to dissolve the 1993 marriage, the Dubai court cannot now grant another one;
- Farkhad is not a Muslim, and that their marriage was not according to Sharia law (it was instead a standard Russian civil marriage).
On 16 August 2020, the Dubai Court of First Instance rejected this application on the basis of not having jurisdiction:
It was proven by the plaintiff’s passport that his residence in the state ended on 26-7-2018, and therefore he has no residence, domicile or place of business in the state at the time when the lawsuit was filed. This means that the jurisdiction is not vested in this court to consider his case and as a result the defendant’s argument as to the court’s lack of jurisdiction is granted.
Farkhad appealed the judgment to the Dubai Court of Appeal. On 17 November 2017, the Dubai Court of Appeal rejected Farkhad’s appeal. No appeal has been filed to the Dubai Court of Cassation, and therefore the judgment of the Dubai Court of Appeal is final.
2. Farkhad/Straight’s wrongful arrest claim
On the basis of the decision of the Joint Judicial Committee that the proper jurisdiction for Dubai enforcement proceedings was the local Dubai courts, Farkhad/Straight brought a claim relating to the arrest of the Luna by the DIFC. They alleged the arrest had been wrongful, and they had suffered damages, alleging that the vessel could have been used for hire during this period.
On 30 January 2020, Farkhad’s claim for damages was rejected by the Court of First Instance. He appealed this decision. That appeal was rejected in May 2020. Farkhad made an appeal to the Court of Cassation on 16 July 2020.
On 2 October 2020, Dubai Court of Cassation rejected Farkhad’s claims for damages. The rejection of Farkhad’s claim is final and binding and is not subject to appeal. The Court also ordered Farkhad to pay expenses and costs to Tatiana.
3. Farkhad’s new arrest claims
On 19 October 2020, Farkhad filed an arrest application seeking an arrest of the Luna.
On 25 January 2021, Farkhad filed a further application for an arrest of the Luna on the basis of a different claim. On 21 September 2020, Farkhad had filed a new claim against Straight Establishment (a trust which the English court has found to be his alter ego / nominee) and the captain of the Luna, claiming for costs of US$49 million apparently incurred by Farkhad on repairs to the Vessel plus $20 million towards compensation allegedly caused by Straight’s alleged refusal to repay the repair costs. On 22 February 2021, the Dubai Court of First Instance issued judgment in the case in favour of Farkhad and granted the arrest.