Martin Khoshdel

Martin represents the Defendant in defending a claim for unpaid loans, post-termination severance entitlements, and a counterclaim for a breach of a non-solicitation clause. The case is ongoing.

Martin represents the Defendant seeking permission to appeal from the first instance judge in relation to an order made for recognition and enforcement. An arbitration claim had been issued and served by the Claimant seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award from Singapore for approximately $3m concerning a maritime dispute. Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional challenge, the Court issued an ex parte order recognising and enforcing the arbitral award. The appeal concerns whether the ex parte order can be properly issued if the claim had been served. The parties are awaiting the outcome of the application seeking permission to appeal

Represented a major Dubai bank in opposing a mandatory interim injunction requiring the bank to keep thousands of prepaid debit cards used by low income workers operational.

Martin represented the first defendant and successfully opposed an urgent application seeking American Cyanamid injunction orders sought in aid of arbitration proceedings seated in Milan. The substantive proceedings touched upon the elections of the board of directors of a semi-public body incorporated in the mainland Dubai, and potential misconduct allegations made against the first claimant. The DIFC claim was for the preservation of the status quo and preservation of certain documentation pending arbitration proceedings. The submissions advanced covered the DIFC Courts' 'fundamental jurisdiction' drawing distinctions between freezing orders and American Cyanamid injunctions. Martin's submissions also focused on the discretionary element in granting injunctions including the applicants' failure to exhaust more appropriate remedies, i.e. using the Emergency Arbitrator procedure on an ex parte basis and then enforcing those orders in the mainland Dubai courts where D1 was incorporated. The Court concluded that it did not have fundamental jurisdiction and in any event would not exercise its discretion in granting the injunctions.

Advising a major company based in Dubai in respect of a Worldwide Freezing Order imposed by the DIFC Courts and the consequences of the order.

Representing and appearing as sole counsel for the Claimant in the DIFC Court of First Instance for employment related claims for notice pay, other contractual entitlements, penalties, loss of earnings, and successfully defending a $2,000,000 counterclaim brought in negligence and pure economic loss.

Representing the Claimant as lead counsel in a claim before the DIFC Court of First Instance seeking specific performance and/or mandatory injunction and damages requiring the Defendant as the local shareholding sponsor of a Dubai company to transfer shares held as a bare nominee pursuant to the Nominee Agreement.

Represented the Claimant as lead counsel in a Part 8 claim seeking declaratory relief for DIFC-LCIA arbitration with the main determination concerning the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction under the DIFC Arbitration Law and Decree 34 of 2021.

Represented the employer before the DIFC Technology and Construction Division in a five-day trial as lead counsel in claims and counterclaims for fire related delays, non-fire related delays, extension of time, prolongation costs, variations, liquidated damages, and breach of an indemnity agreement.

Represented the Claimant in anti-suit injunction appeal.

Advising former employees of an international bank based in the DIFC in respect of suspected regulatory breaches of the DFSA Rulebook in relation to onboarding of clients in breach of AML rules.

Martin represented the first defendant seeking to oppose the granting of a worldwide freezing injunction for over $100m. Martin's submissions centred on the DIFC Court's jurisdiction as to whether the Claimant is a Licensed DIFC Establishment, whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens needs reconsideration under the new Law 2 of 2025, and substantive submissions on the freezing injunction. The case concerned the divestments of assets globally allegedly in order to prevent enforcement of a Dubai Court's judgment. The claims are primarily based in tort under UAE law. The case is ongoing with Martin being led by Faisal Osman.

Martin represents the second defendant in a dispute concerning the liabilities of the first defendant to the claimant under a joint venture agreement and loan agreement for approximately £3,000,000. The second defendant's liability arises under an alleged oral guarantee agreement given over a telephone conversation. The trial is due for September 2026.

Represented the subcontractor in opposing the continuation of an anti-suit injunction where the subcontractor had brought proceedings in the Abu Dhabi courts in breach of an arbitration agreement and had secured payment under those proceedings.

Represented the Respondent (MAG) on appeal concerning the availability of Article 82 of the DIFC Contract Law (Force Majeure) in contracts which do not contain force majeure clauses, and the meaning of the phrase "Except with respect to a mere obligation to pay". Martin successfully argued that the words "Except with respect of a mere obligation to pay" relate to simple obligations untied to other obligations, which has universal application in all DIFC governed contracts absent force majeure clauses. The decision is the first and only Court of Appeal authority on the application of statutory force majeure in all commercial contracts.

A claim for an inquiry into damages following the DIFC Court of Appeal setting aside worldwide freezing orders. The case is the first known case where the DIFC Court of First Instance permitted an inquiry into damages resulting in the award of damages comprising irrecoverable legal costs in related foreign proceedings. The case also comprehensively addressed the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an inquiry into damages where worldwide freezing orders were set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Responding to a claim for an urgent interim injunction heard by the DIFC Digital Economy Court concerning the relationship between two terminated commercial contracts between a financial services provider and a prominent UAE bank in respect of the provision of pre-paid debit cards to low-income workers in the UAE.

Represented the Claimant as lead counsel at an ex parte interim anti-suit injunction claim before the DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division, and on appeal before the DIFC Court of Appeal seeking to prohibit the main contractor in a construction project from continuing its suit in the local Dubai Courts in breach of a DIFC-LCIA arbitration agreement with the place of arbitration as Dubai.

Represented a subcontractor as lead counsel before the DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division seeking to set default judgment aside granting declaratory relief arguing waiver in respect of an arbitration agreement.

Representing the Claimant claiming for unpaid rent, and other related damages, totalling in excess of £3m, where a variety of defences have been advanced including standing of the Defendants, and force majeure. The Defendants seek to argue that the Dubai Floods of April 2024 absolved their obligations to pay rent. Martin successfully opposed the Defendants' application for immediate / summary judgment seeking to remove the individual Defendants (D2 and D3) from the proceedings. Martin made an application for summary / immediate judgment concerning the availability of force majeure as a defence under the DIFC Contract Law where the obligation is a 'mere obligation to pay'. This application was successfully and the force majeure defence was dismissed. The trial of the matter is due for June 2026.

Represented the First Defendant as counsel in opposing immediate judgment in respect of a $34,000,000 fraud allegedly committed against Dr Shetty.

Martin was led by Mark Rainsford KC where they successfully obtained an ex parte freezing injunction in aid of substantive proceedings in Cyprus for EUR 3.52m. The case concerned a series of complicated contractual structures in order to effect a transaction without falling foul of the various sanctions regimes. The Defendant was alleged to have breached one of the numerous contracts by failing to meet his obligations causing the entire structure to fall apart. When served with the interim freezing injunction, the Defendant systematically dissipated his assets. Martin and Mark secured the continuation of the freezing order at return hearings including which dealt with jurisdiciton and the substantive injunction. Martin conducted a number of the interim hearings alone.

Advising a litigant in proceedings before the High Court of St Vincent and the Grenadines in relation to a crypto fraud where one of crypto exchange servers was domiciled in the UAE. Martin advised on bringing proceedings in the ADGM Courts and DIFC Courts for Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Freezing Orders. Martin's work in the preparation to bring these claims resulted in a settlement by the UAE domiciled litigant.

Martin represents the Defendant in defending a claim for unpaid loans, post-termination severance entitlements, and a counterclaim for a breach of a non-solicitation clause. The case is ongoing.

Martin represents the Defendant seeking permission to appeal from the first instance judge in relation to an order made for recognition and enforcement. An arbitration claim had been issued and served by the Claimant seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award from Singapore for approximately $3m concerning a maritime dispute. Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional challenge, the Court issued an ex parte order recognising and enforcing the arbitral award. The appeal concerns whether the ex parte order can be properly issued if the claim had been served. The parties are awaiting the outcome of the application seeking permission to appeal

Represented a major Dubai bank in opposing a mandatory interim injunction requiring the bank to keep thousands of prepaid debit cards used by low income workers operational.

Martin represented the first defendant and successfully opposed an urgent application seeking American Cyanamid injunction orders sought in aid of arbitration proceedings seated in Milan. The substantive proceedings touched upon the elections of the board of directors of a semi-public body incorporated in the mainland Dubai, and potential misconduct allegations made against the first claimant. The DIFC claim was for the preservation of the status quo and preservation of certain documentation pending arbitration proceedings. The submissions advanced covered the DIFC Courts' 'fundamental jurisdiction' drawing distinctions between freezing orders and American Cyanamid injunctions. Martin's submissions also focused on the discretionary element in granting injunctions including the applicants' failure to exhaust more appropriate remedies, i.e. using the Emergency Arbitrator procedure on an ex parte basis and then enforcing those orders in the mainland Dubai courts where D1 was incorporated. The Court concluded that it did not have fundamental jurisdiction and in any event would not exercise its discretion in granting the injunctions.

Martin represented the Defendant in opposing the recognition and enforcement of a Hong Kong judgment worth approximately £30m. The Claimant seeks recognition at common law. The Claimant also sought and obtained a domestic freezing injunction under s.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 by Part 8 proceedings. Martin appeared at a hearing opposing the granting of an 'unless order' sought by the Claimant following the Defendant's repeated failures to provide asset disclosure under the Hong Kong and English court orders.

Representing the Respondent to a Worldwide Freezing Order issued by the English Commercial Court in respect of ongoing Hong Kong proceedings. The English proceedings are ongoing.

A claim for an inquiry into damages following the DIFC Court of Appeal setting aside worldwide freezing orders. The case is the first known case where the DIFC Court of First Instance permitted an inquiry into damages resulting in the award of damages comprising irrecoverable legal costs in related foreign proceedings. The case also comprehensively addressed the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an inquiry into damages where worldwide freezing orders were set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Responding to a claim for an urgent interim injunction heard by the DIFC Digital Economy Court concerning the relationship between two terminated commercial contracts between a financial services provider and a prominent UAE bank in respect of the provision of pre-paid debit cards to low-income workers in the UAE.

Represented the Claimant as lead counsel at an ex parte interim anti-suit injunction claim before the DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division, and on appeal before the DIFC Court of Appeal seeking to prohibit the main contractor in a construction project from continuing its suit in the local Dubai Courts in breach of a DIFC-LCIA arbitration agreement with the place of arbitration as Dubai.

Represented a subcontractor as lead counsel before the DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division seeking to set default judgment aside granting declaratory relief arguing waiver in respect of an arbitration agreement.

Representing the Claimant claiming for unpaid rent, and other related damages, totalling in excess of £3m, where a variety of defences have been advanced including standing of the Defendants, and force majeure. The Defendants seek to argue that the Dubai Floods of April 2024 absolved their obligations to pay rent. Martin successfully opposed the Defendants' application for immediate / summary judgment seeking to remove the individual Defendants (D2 and D3) from the proceedings. Martin made an application for summary / immediate judgment concerning the availability of force majeure as a defence under the DIFC Contract Law where the obligation is a 'mere obligation to pay'. This application was successfully and the force majeure defence was dismissed. The trial of the matter is due for June 2026.

Represented the First Defendant as counsel in opposing immediate judgment in respect of a $34,000,000 fraud allegedly committed against Dr Shetty.

Martin was led by Mark Rainsford KC where they successfully obtained an ex parte freezing injunction in aid of substantive proceedings in Cyprus for EUR 3.52m. The case concerned a series of complicated contractual structures in order to effect a transaction without falling foul of the various sanctions regimes. The Defendant was alleged to have breached one of the numerous contracts by failing to meet his obligations causing the entire structure to fall apart. When served with the interim freezing injunction, the Defendant systematically dissipated his assets. Martin and Mark secured the continuation of the freezing order at return hearings including which dealt with jurisdiciton and the substantive injunction. Martin conducted a number of the interim hearings alone.

Martin and Aidan Casey KC are instructed to represent two companies that loaned £5,000,000 which remain unpaid. The case concerns whether the financial broker and/or accountant were negligent in failing to carry out due diligence in respect of the borrower who was later found to be insolvent. The matter is still at pre-action stage.

Martin represented the first defendant seeking to oppose the granting of a worldwide freezing injunction for over $100m. Martin's submissions centred on the DIFC Court's jurisdiction as to whether the Claimant is a Licensed DIFC Establishment, whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens needs reconsideration under the new Law 2 of 2025, and substantive submissions on the freezing injunction. The case concerned the divestments of assets globally allegedly in order to prevent enforcement of a Dubai Court's judgment. The claims are primarily based in tort under UAE law. The case is ongoing with Martin being led by Faisal Osman.

Martin represents the second defendant in a dispute concerning the liabilities of the first defendant to the claimant under a joint venture agreement and loan agreement for approximately £3,000,000. The second defendant's liability arises under an alleged oral guarantee agreement given over a telephone conversation. The trial is due for September 2026.

Represented the subcontractor in opposing the continuation of an anti-suit injunction where the subcontractor had brought proceedings in the Abu Dhabi courts in breach of an arbitration agreement and had secured payment under those proceedings.

Represented the Respondent (MAG) on appeal concerning the availability of Article 82 of the DIFC Contract Law (Force Majeure) in contracts which do not contain force majeure clauses, and the meaning of the phrase "Except with respect to a mere obligation to pay". Martin successfully argued that the words "Except with respect of a mere obligation to pay" relate to simple obligations untied to other obligations, which has universal application in all DIFC governed contracts absent force majeure clauses. The decision is the first and only Court of Appeal authority on the application of statutory force majeure in all commercial contracts.

Representing the Claimant as sole counsel in a claim for unpaid sums amounting to approximately USD 3,000,000 in breach of a lease agreement. The Defendants have raised various defences including force majeure, with a trial set down at the end of March 2026.

Advising a major company based in Dubai in respect of a Worldwide Freezing Order imposed by the DIFC Courts and the consequences of the order.

Representing and appearing as sole counsel for the Claimant in the DIFC Court of First Instance for employment related claims for notice pay, other contractual entitlements, penalties, loss of earnings, and successfully defending a $2,000,000 counterclaim brought in negligence and pure economic loss.

Representing the Claimant as lead counsel in a claim before the DIFC Court of First Instance seeking specific performance and/or mandatory injunction and damages requiring the Defendant as the local shareholding sponsor of a Dubai company to transfer shares held as a bare nominee pursuant to the Nominee Agreement.

Represented the Claimant as lead counsel in a Part 8 claim seeking declaratory relief for DIFC-LCIA arbitration with the main determination concerning the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction under the DIFC Arbitration Law and Decree 34 of 2021.

Represented the employer before the DIFC Technology and Construction Division in a five-day trial as lead counsel in claims and counterclaims for fire related delays, non-fire related delays, extension of time, prolongation costs, variations, liquidated damages, and breach of an indemnity agreement.

Represented the Claimant in anti-suit injunction appeal.

Advising former employees of an international bank based in the DIFC in respect of suspected regulatory breaches of the DFSA Rulebook in relation to onboarding of clients in breach of AML rules.

Martin represented the first defendant seeking to oppose the granting of a worldwide freezing injunction for over $100m. Martin's submissions centred on the DIFC Court's jurisdiction as to whether the Claimant is a Licensed DIFC Establishment, whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens needs reconsideration under the new Law 2 of 2025, and substantive submissions on the freezing injunction. The case concerned the divestments of assets globally allegedly in order to prevent enforcement of a Dubai Court's judgment. The claims are primarily based in tort under UAE law. The case is ongoing with Martin being led by Faisal Osman.

Successfully defended a $2,000,000 counterclaim brought in negligence and pure economic loss with allegations of conspiracy to defraud.

Represented the First Defendant as counsel in opposing immediate judgment in respect of a $34,000,000 fraud allegedly committed against Dr Shetty.

Represented the Claimant in a claim in negligence following fraudulent transactions and invocation of the Quincecare duty.

Advising an investor of $600,000 Belarussian Bonds against an investment wealth management firm for claims including mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, unlawful means conspiracy, deceit and negligence, and breach of DFSA Rulebook obligations.

Martin was led by Mark Rainsford KC where they successfully obtained an ex parte freezing injunction in aid of substantive proceedings in Cyprus for EUR 3.52m. The case concerned a series of complicated contractual structures in order to effect a transaction without falling foul of the various sanctions regimes. The Defendant was alleged to have breached one of the numerous contracts by failing to meet his obligations causing the entire structure to fall apart. When served with the interim freezing injunction, the Defendant systematically dissipated his assets. Martin and Mark secured the continuation of the freezing order at return hearings including which dealt with jurisdiciton and the substantive injunction. Martin conducted a number of the interim hearings alone.

Advising a litigant in proceedings before the High Court of St Vincent and the Grenadines in relation to a crypto fraud where one of crypto exchange servers was domiciled in the UAE. Martin advised on bringing proceedings in the ADGM Courts and DIFC Courts for Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Freezing Orders. Martin's work in the preparation to bring these claims resulted in a settlement by the UAE domiciled litigant.

Represented a major Dubai bank in opposing a mandatory interim injunction requiring the bank to keep thousands of prepaid debit cards used by low income workers operational.

Represented employer in defending a multi-billion AED claim under ADCCAC rules concerning a major hotel development in Abu Dhabi. The case concerned delays, prolongation costs, and variation claims.

Represented employer in DIAC arbitration concerning three projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (approx. AED 50,000,000 cumulative).Represented the employer in three DIAC arbitrations concerning three separate projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (approx. AED 50,000,000 cumulative). The cases concerned delays, the application of liquidated damages, claims for prolongation costs and non-certification of payment certificates.

Martin represents the Respondent in a three-day arbitration scheduled for April 2026. The case concerns the non-payment of invoices in respect of the provision and implementation of accountancy software where it is suggested that the Claimant failed to meet its obligations under the first contract which directly and necessarily impacted the implementation of the second contract.

Represented main contractor in ICC arbitration concerning two energy stations in Dubai claiming delay damages, defective works, and descoping; defending counterclaim for extension of time and prolongation costs (approx. AED 22,000,000).

Represented contractor in pre-arbitration matters concerning energy power station in JVC (approx. AED 25,000,000).

Represented purchaser of $19,000,000 of oil in DIAC proceedings successfully defeating the seller’s attempt to obtain a quick award by way of emergency proceedings under DIAC’s emergency procedure.

Represented employer in defending a multi-billion AED claim under ADCCAC rules concerning a major hotel development in Abu Dhabi. The case concerned delays, prolongation costs, and variation claims.

Represented employer in DIAC arbitration concerning three projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (approx. AED 50,000,000 cumulative).Represented the employer in three DIAC arbitrations concerning three separate projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (approx. AED 50,000,000 cumulative). The cases concerned delays, the application of liquidated damages, claims for prolongation costs and non-certification of payment certificates.

Represented the employer before the DIFC Technology and Construction Division in a five-day trial as lead counsel in claims and counterclaims for fire related delays, non-fire related delays, extension of time, prolongation costs, variations, liquidated damages, and breach of an indemnity agreement.

Represented main contractor in ICC arbitration concerning two energy stations in Dubai claiming delay damages, defective works, and descoping; defending counterclaim for extension of time and prolongation costs (approx. AED 22,000,000).

Represented contractor in pre-arbitration matters concerning energy power station in JVC (approx. AED 25,000,000).

Instructed as part of a team led by Ben Valentin KC by the SFO in relation to a privilege review concerning alleged shipping fraud extending to the UAE.

Representing the Defendant in a criminal trial charged with attempting to cheat the revenue by claiming a VAT refund of £4,166,674.00.