Martin Khoshdel

Commercial Litigation

Martin’s practice focuses on representing individuals and corporate bodies in a variety of high-value and complicated contractual claims including general commercial and contractual disputes, directors and shareholders disputes, investment management agreements, mis-selling of financial products, banking and finance, joint venture agreements, partnership disputes, asset recovery, construction contracts, oil & gas contracts, jurisdiction and choice of law including arbitration agreements, claims to supervise or support arbitration proceedings, sale of goods, supply of goods and services, and more.

Representative Cases

Sandra Holding Ltd and another v Al Saleh and others [2021] DIFC CFI 092 – claim for an inquiry into damages following the DIFC Court of Appeal setting aside worldwide freezing orders. The case is first known case where the DIFC Court of First Instance permitted an inquiry into damages resulting in the award of damages comprising of irrecoverable legal costs in related foreign proceedings. The case is also the first to comprehensively grapple with jurisdiction of the Court to grant an inquiry into damages in circumstances where the Court set aside worldwide freezing orders for lack of jurisdiction.

Faizal Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008 – 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. The case provides comprehensive guidance on limitation periods and the relationship between the DIFC Employment Law and the DIFC Contract Law.

Representing the Claimant in case [2024] DIFC DEC 001 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. The ramifications were potentially severe and immediate as the availability of salary to workers was at stake.

Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Almaazmi [2024] DIFC CFI 094 – representing the Claimant as lead counsel in a claim before the DIFC Court of First Instance seeking specific performance and/or injunction and damages mandating the Defendant local shareholding sponsor of a Dubai company to transfer shares held as a bare nominee pursuant to the Nominee Agreement.

Represented the subcontractor as lead counsel against the main contractor in proceedings [2024] DIFC ARB 001 opposing the continuation of an anti-suit injunction.

Ledger v Leeor [2022] DIFC ARB 016 and [2022] DIFC CA 013 – 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. The claim sought to invoke the DIFC Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction if the seat were interpreted as meaning the DIFC, or alternatively the DIFC Courts’ supportive jurisdiction if the seat were mainland Dubai.

Zaya Living Real Estate Development LLC v China State Construction and Engineering Corporation (Middle East) LLC [2022] DIFC CFI 051 – 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.

Mibot v Mfast [2020] DIFC ARB 035 – 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 where the same party seeking declaratory relief had engaged in the merits of the same dispute in the local Dubai Courts by filing a counterclaim.

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.

Representing the Claimant as sole counsel in an employment dispute before the ADGM Courts where the Claimant was dismissed without cause. The central issue concerned whether terms may be implied into employment contracts requiring an employer not to act in a capricious manner to avoid paying commissions post dismissal where the dismissal was lawful. The case further concerned the incorporation of policies in the absence of clear and express wording.

Civil Fraud and Asset Tracing/Recovery

Martin has significant experience of civil fraud and asset recovery involving allegations of breach of contract, unlawful interference, deceit, conspiracy, forged signatures, misrepresentation, mistake, and negligence.

Representative Cases

Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v Neopharma LLC and others [2020] DIFC CFI 043 – represented the first defendant as counsel in respect of a $34,000,000 fraud allegedly to have been committed against Dr Shetty. 

Sanja Boskovic v Miabaud (Middle East) Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 064 – represented the Claimant in a claim in negligence following fraudulent transactions in respect of the Claimant’s personal bank account and breach of the Quincecare duty where the Claimant disputed signing various documents, and a failure to implement adequate systems to prevent fraudulent transactions being effected.

Faizal Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008 – successfully defended the counterclaim for $2,000,000 brought in negligence and pure economic loss with allegations of conspiracy to defraud having been made.

Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Almaazmi [2024] DIFC CFI 094 – represented the Claimant against a jurisdictional challenge by the Defendant alleging that he did not sign the relevant Nominee Agreement containing the opt-in jurisdiction clause, which was withdrawn on the eve of the jurisdictional hearing.

Advising an investor of $600,000 Belarussian Bonds against an investment wealth management firm for claims sought in respect of mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, unlawful means conspiracy, deceit and negligence, and breach of regulatory breaches of the DFSA Rulebook.

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

Construction and Engineering

Martin’s specialisms cover complex and high-value construction, engineering and infrastructure disputes, in particular delay related claims with technical aspects, representing Employers, Main Contractors, and Subcontractors.

Representative Cases

Represented main contractor as lead counsel against subcontractor in an ICC arbitration concerning two (2) energy stations in Dubai (bespoke contracts) claiming delay damages, damages for defective works, and descoping; and defending a counterclaim for extension of time with prolongation costs and other unpaid sums. Amounts in dispute amounted to approximately AED 22,000,000.

Represented employer in DIAC arbitration concerning three (3) separate arbitrations in relation to three (3) projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (FIDIC contract with particular conditions) involving claims for delay damages, extension of time with prolongation costs, variations, uncertified payments, unpaid certified payments and other losses. Amounts in dispute cumulatively amounted to approximately AED 50,000,000.

Represented employer in multi-billion AED claim under ADCCAC rules concerning a major hotel development in Abu Dhabi (FIDIC contract with particular conditions) involving claims for delay damages, extension of time with prolongation costs, variations, descoping, uncertified payments, unpaid certified payments and other consequential losses.

Represented contractor in pre-arbitration matters in relation to a prospective DIAC arbitration against the employer concerning delay, extension of time with prolongation costs, and other unpaid sums in relation to an energy power station in JVC (FIDIC contract with particular conditions). Amounts in dispute are approximately AED 25,000,000.

Five Real Estate Development LLC v Reem Emirates Aluminium LLC [2020] DIFC TCD 009 – represented employer as lead counsel before the DIFC Technology and Construction Division in a five day trial concerning the FIVE JVC hotel and residential building (FIDIC contract with particular conditions) involving a challenge to the Engineer’s Determination, fire related delays, non-fire delays, variations, contra charge, prolongation costs, and recovery of losses under an indemnity clause. Amounts in dispute amounted to approximately AED 24,000,000.

International and Offshore

Martin has spent 4 years to date in the UAE having been employed as a Barrister of two prominent and well-respected law firms in Dubai. He has full rights of audience before the DIFC Courts, ADGM Courts and AIFC Courts. He is eligible for rights of audience before the QFC Courts in Doha once instructed.

He has particular experience in commercial and construction related disputes before the courts and in arbitration.

Martin has particular expertise on matters of jurisdiction having appeared in a number of cases concerning the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts and arbitral proceedings challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Representative Cases

Sandra Holding Ltd and another v Al Saleh and others [2021] DIFC CFI 092 – claim for an inquiry into damages following the DIFC Court of Appeal setting aside worldwide freezing orders. The case is first known case where the DIFC Court of First Instance permitted an inquiry into damages resulting in the award of damages comprising of irrecoverable legal costs in related foreign proceedings. The case is also the first to comprehensively grapple with jurisdiction of the Court to grant an inquiry into damages in circumstances where the Court set aside worldwide freezing orders for lack of jurisdiction. 

Representing the Claimant in case [2024] DIFC DEC 001 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. The ramifications were potentially severe and immediate as the availability of salary to workers was at stake. 

Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Almaazmi [2024] DIFC CFI 094 – 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 subcontractor as lead counsel against the main contractor in proceedings [2024] DIFC ARB 001 opposing the continuation of an anti-suit injunction.

Ledger v Leeor [2022] DIFC ARB 016 and [2022] DIFC CA 013 – 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. The claim sought to invoke the DIFC Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction if the seat were interpreted as meaning the DIFC, or alternatively the DIFC Courts’ supportive jurisdiction if the seat were mainland Dubai.

Zaya Living Real Estate Development LLC v China State Construction and Engineering Corporation (Middle East) LLC [2022] DIFC CFI 051 – 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.

Mibot v Mfast [2020] DIFC ARB 035 – 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 where the same party seeking declaratory relief had engaged in the merits of the same dispute in the local Dubai Courts by filing a counterclaim. 

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.

Representing the Claimant as sole counsel in an employment dispute before the ADGM Courts where the Claimant was dismissed without cause. The central issue concerned whether terms may be implied into employment contracts requiring an employer not to act in a capricious manner to avoid paying commissions post dismissal where the dismissal was lawful. The case further concerned the incorporation of policies in the absence of clear and express wording.

Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v Neopharma LLC and others [2020] DIFC CFI 043 – representing the first defendant as counsel in respect of a $34,000,000 fraud allegedly to have been committed against Dr Shetty. 

Sanja Boskovic v Miabaud (Middle East) Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 064 – represented the Claimant in a claim in negligence following fraudulent transactions in respect of the Claimant’s personal bank account and the invocation of the Quincecare duty where the Claimant disputed signing various documents.

Faizal Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008 – 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. The case provides comprehensive guidance on limitation periods and the relationship between the DIFC Employment Law and the DIFC Contract Law.

Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Almaazmi [2024] DIFC CFI 094 – represented the Claimant against a jurisdictional challenge by the Defendant alleging that he did not sign the relevant Nominee Agreement containing the opt-in jurisdiction clause, which was withdrawn on the eve of the jurisdictional hearing. 

Advising an investor of $600,000 Belarussian Bonds against an investment wealth management firm for claims sought in respect of mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, unlawful means conspiracy, deceit and negligence.

Represented main contractor as lead counsel against subcontractor in an ICC arbitration concerning two (2) energy stations in Dubai (bespoke contracts) claiming delay damages, damages for defective works, and descoping; and defending a counterclaim for extension of time with prolongation costs and other unpaid sums. Amounts in dispute amounted to approximately AED 22,000,000 (Dubai seat, Dubai governing law).

Represented employer in DIAC arbitration concerning three (3) separate arbitrations in relation to three (3) projects for hotel and residential towers in Dubai (FIDIC contract with particular conditions) involving claims for delay damages, extension of time with prolongation costs, variations, uncertified payments, unpaid certified payments and other losses. Amounts in dispute cumulatively amounted to approximately AED 50,000,000 (Dubai seat, Dubai governing law).

Represented employer in multi-billion AED claim under ADCCAC rules concerning a major hotel development in Abu Dhabi (FIDIC contract with particular conditions) involving claims for delay damages, extension of time with prolongation costs, variations, descoping, uncertified payments, unpaid certified payments and other consequential losses (Abu Dhabi seat, Abu Dhabi governing law).

Represented contractor in pre-arbitration matters in relation to a prospective DIAC arbitration against the employer concerning delay, extension of time with prolongation costs, and other unpaid sums in relation to an energy power station in JVC (FIDIC contract with particular conditions). Amounts in dispute are approximately AED 25,000,000 (Dubai seat, Dubai governing law).

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 (DIFC seat, Dubai governing law). 

Regulatory, White Collar and Corporate litigation

Martin’s considerable experience within white-collar investigations and his civil fraud and commercial litigation practice places him in the ideal position to provide advice and representation to clients navigating commercial disputes arising from white-collar investigations.

As a result, he is best placed to accept instructions in cases involving the commercial and criminal crossover.

A large number of the cases Martin has been instructed on are confidential and private. Some highlights can be found below.

Representative Cases

Sandra Holding Ltd and another v Al Saleh and others [2021] DIFC CFI 092 – claim for an inquiry into damages following the DIFC Court of Appeal setting aside worldwide freezing orders. The case is first known case where the DIFC Court of First Instance permitted an inquiry into damages resulting in the award of damages comprising of irrecoverable legal costs in related foreign proceedings. The case is also the first to comprehensively grapple with jurisdiction of the Court to grant an inquiry into damages in circumstances where the Court set aside worldwide freezing orders for lack of jurisdiction.

Advising an investor of $600,000 Belarussian Bonds against an investment wealth management firm for claims sought in respect of mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, unlawful means conspiracy, deceit and negligence, and breach of regulatory breaches of the DFSA Rulebook.

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

SFO Investigation (2017 to 2019) – instructed as a team of counsel led by Ben Valentin KC by the SFO in relation to a privilege review. Martin’s role focused on Farsi language documents as well as assisting with the review of English language documents, all relating to alleged a shipping fraud that extended to the UAE.

R v Darryl Lee (2018) – representing the Defendant in a criminal trial in the Crown Court at Oxford charged with attempting to cheat the revenue by claiming a VAT refund of £4,166,674.00. The Defendant had set up a nuclear waste disposal business. The business demanded payments of £25,000,000.00 on the basis of expected business to be generated by the Defendant as the employee. Accordingly, the Defendant provided the company with commercial instruments, promissory notes, and attempted to recover the VAT from HMRC.

Additional Admissions

DIFC Courts Part II (2021)

ADGM Courts (2024)

AIFC Courts (2024)

MCIArb (2023)

DIAC’s Approved List of Arbitrators (2025)