We are pleased to announce that Matouk Bassiouny has obtained judgment before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance recovering more than AED 11 million for its client on an AED 5 million loan advanced in December 2014. Most notably, the DIFC Court confirmed two significant principles for lenders and litigants: it confirmed that a debtor cannot rely on the passage of time to avoid repayment where he has concealed his own wrongdoing, and that the DIFC Courts will make good the true cost of delay by awarding compound interest.

The Defendant denied ever receiving the funds and contended that the claim was time-barred. Following a two-day trial, H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke found that the AED 5 million had been advanced, that the Defendant’s evidence was “not credible”, and that his intentions were “fraudulent”. Applying section 32 of the English Limitation Act 1980, the Court confirmed that where a claim is based upon the defendant’s fraud, or where facts relevant to the claim have been deliberately concealed, time does not begin to run until the claimant discovers the fraud or concealment, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. On the facts, the fraud could not reasonably have been discovered more than six years before the claim was filed.

On the award of interest, the Court held that interest “should run at a rate which is genuinely compensatory for being kept out of the use of the money, which means a compounded rate”, and awarded 9% per annum, compounded, from the date repayment fell due. Unlike onshore UAE law, where Article 88 of the Commercial Transactions Law prohibits compound interest, the DIFC Courts may award compound interest where the facts justify it.

The team advising on this case was led by Ahmed Tony (Partner), supported by Youssef Nassar (Senior Associate) and Alia Elraey (Associate), together with Counsel Sajid Suleman of Outer Temple Chambers.

Commenting on the judgment, Ahmed Tony said: “The main challenge in this case was limitation. Our success in this case shows that a limitation defence should not be accepted at face value before the facts behind the delay are properly examined. We are pleased to have supported our client throughout and to have obtained a favourable judgment.”

Led by Founding Partner and Group Head of Dispute Resolution, John Matouk, our International Dispute Resolution (IDR) team advises on complex cross-border disputes across the region and brings extensive experience in representing clients before the ADGM and DIFC Courts in the UAE. Our team is common law qualified, with Ahmed Tony admitted in England and Wales, Youssef Nassar (Senior Associate) in New York, and Alia Elraey (Associate) in England and Wales. As part of our commitment to providing comprehensive legal services, we collaborate with specialist barristers to ensure our clients receive the highest quality representation throughout the litigation process.

For more about Matouk Bassiouny, visit our website at https://matoukbassiouny.com/.

The full judgment is available at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/karthi-keyan-venkataramana-v-ahmed-mohammad-abdul-rahman-ali-2025-difc-cfi-110.

Case Reference: Venkataramana v Ali, DIFC CFI-110-2025, Judgment of H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 15 July 2026.