Legal update
Published
25 Oct 2026
Source date
24 Oct 2026
DIFC Court of Appeal Clarifies Enforcement of Settlements Under Non-Conventional Tomlin Orders
Why it matters
The DIFC Court of Appeal in Kapova v Makovini has clarified that DIFC Courts can enforce settlement agreements in stayed proceedings even if the underlying consent order does not strictly adopt the conventional Tomlin order format. Dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed the enforceability of such settlements within existing stayed actions.
Key points
- The DIFC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Kapova v Makovini.
- The Court confirmed that settlements may be enforced within stayed proceedings even when a consent order does not strictly track the traditional Tomlin form.
- Miloslav Makovini and Pharm Trade Holding Ltd were represented by Khaitan & Co before the appellate court.
What changed
Confirmed that strict adherence to the conventional Tomlin order format is not mandatory for DIFC Courts to enforce settlement agreements within stayed proceedings.
Who it affects
Commercial parties, dispute resolution practitioners, and litigants entering into settlement and consent orders within the DIFC Courts.
Jurisdiction
Dubai International Financial Centre
Sources and original links
Open the links below to read the material this update is based on.
This update is based on legal reporting. An official judgment or notification link is not currently available here, so please check the official text before relying on it.
Written by Law At Ease editorial desk
Continue reading: Learn, Case Library and all Law Updates.
This explanation is editorial context, not a substitute for the official text or for legal advice.