{"id":401254,"date":"2026-11-14T12:00:42","date_gmt":"2026-11-14T06:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=401254"},"modified":"2026-11-13T18:03:49","modified_gmt":"2026-11-13T12:33:49","slug":"difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Dubai International Financial Centre Courts:<\/span> The proceedings arose from Persephone’s application for permission to appeal against an order setting aside a final majority arbitral award and dismissing its claim for recognition and enforcement. H.E. Justice Mark Pelling<\/span>, held that the proposed grounds of appeal were unarguable, observing that the arbitral majority had relied on findings concerning Princeton’s post-contractual conduct, Persephone’s ability to pay, and Princeton’s ability to deliver the cargo, although these matters had not been advanced by Persephone or explored through pleadings, evidence or disclosure. The Court found that Princeton had consequently been denied a fair opportunity to address these issues and that the defects were fundamental to the award, making partial setting aside impracticable and unfair.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The proceedings arose from a final majority arbitral award dated 19 January 2026, issued in a Dubai International Arbitration Centre arbitration between Princeton and Persephone. On 2 March 2026, Princeton commenced a claim under Article 41 of DIFC Law 1 of 2008 (Arbitration Law), seeking to set aside the Final Award. On 20 April 2026, Persephone filed Claim under Article 42(1) of the Arbitration Law and Rule 43.62 of Rules of Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (RDC), seeking recognition and enforcement of the award.<\/p>\n

By an order dated 14 August 2026, Persephone’s Recognition Claim was dismissed. On 4 September 2026, Persephone applied for permission to appeal against that order, relying on four grounds. Princeton opposed the application, submitting that the proposed appeal had no more than a fanciful prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court considered the test under RDC 44.19, which requires permission to appeal to be granted only where the proposed appeal would have a real, meaning more than fanciful, prospect of success, or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. However, the Court observed that Grounds 1 and 2 could not succeed unless Ground 3 succeeded.<\/p>\n

A. Grounds 1, 2 and 3: Scope of submissions and denial of a fair opportunity to present the case<\/p>\n

Persephone challenged the Court’s application of the scope-of-submission test under Articles 41(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of Arbitration Law, its characterisation of the majority’s findings, and its conclusion that Princeton had been denied a fair opportunity to present its case. It relied on the Tribunal’s written questions to the parties, Princeton’s responses without objection, and the closure of proceedings without complaint. The Court held that Ground 3, which was regarding fair opportunity to present case, was unarguable, because:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    the majority had found that Princeton’s post-contractual conduct rendered the undisputed contractual payment obligation “moot”. However, Persephone had not advanced that case. It was common ground that payment was contractually due by either 1 February or 7 February 2024, depending on whether the fixture recap governed the payment obligation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    The Court observed that Princeton had not been given an opportunity to address whether the payment obligation could be displaced by waiver, variation or estoppel. None of these matters had been pleaded, supported by evidence, subjected to cross-examination or addressed through disclosure. Further, they were excluded by the entire agreement provision in the contract. The Court considered that these arguments were realistically capable of making a difference.<\/p>\n

  2. \n

    The majority had rejected Princeton’s case on repudiation on the basis that Princeton had no reason to doubt Persephone’s ability to pay. However, that finding depended on concluding that Persephone was ready, willing and able to pay, an allegation that Persephone had not made.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    The Court held that, had Princeton been given an opportunity to comment, it could have pointed out that the issue had not been addressed through disclosure or evidence because the allegation had not been made.<\/p>\n

  3. \n

    The majority had concluded that Princeton was unable to deliver the cargo, although Persephone had never advanced such an allegation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    The Court observed that the issue had consequently not been explored through evidence or disclosure. Further, the contract was not for the delivery of a specific cargo, meaning that Princeton could have paid for what was required to be delivered on the open market. That issue had not been explored through discovery or evidence and might have required expert evidence to determine. The Court again considered that these points were realistically arguable and could realistically have made a difference.<\/p>\n

    The Court rejected Persephone’s reliance on the Tribunal’s written questions and the parties’ responses, and held that the questions concerned whether payment should have been made by 7 February or the earlier date advanced by Princeton, an issue turning on the effect of the entire agreement provision. They did not address whether the obligation to pay on either date had become “moot”. Accordingly, the Court held that Ground 3 was unarguable, thus Grounds 1 and 2 could not succeed.<\/p>\n<\/ol>\n

    B. Ground 4: Setting aside the entire award<\/p>\n

    Persephone contended that the Court should have set aside only part of the Final Award rather than the entire award. The Court held that this ground was unarguable, and observed that Article 41(2)(a)(iii) of Arbitration Law expressly provided for the possibility of setting aside an award in part, whereas no such express alternative was available following a finding of breach under Article 41(2)(a)(ii) of Arbitration Law, which was the primary provision relied upon in the set aside order.<\/p>\n

    The Court further noted that, even if an implied power to partially set aside an award existed, Persephone had failed to identify which parts of the award could be excised. The challenged findings were fundamental to the majority’s decision and could not be removed without leaving an award that neither party had sought and the Tribunal had not made. Therefore, the Court concluded that partial setting aside was not possible as a matter of fairness and practicality. Since the defects pervaded the entire award, the only available course was to set it aside in its entirety. Otherwise, Princeton would remain liable for approximately USD 18.4 million on the basis of a case that had not been advanced against it and to which it had not been given an opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n

    C. Article 41(4): Remit the award to the Tribunal<\/p>\n

    Regarding remitting the award, the Court held that there was no general or default power permitting the Court to remit an award to the Tribunal. Article 41(4) Arbitration Law, applied only where a party requested the Court to suspend proceedings in which an order setting aside an award had been sought. However, in the present case, neither party had made such a request. The Court further held that any such request had to be made no later than the conclusion of the substantive hearing of the set aside claim, and could not be sought after judgment by way of an appeal.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the Court directed that any application by Princeton for the costs of and occasioned by the PTA Application be determined through written submissions, followed by a further order with reasons.<\/p>\n

    [Princeton v. Persephone, Claim Nos. ARB 015 of 2026, order dated 3-11-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The dispute arose from a DIAC arbitration in which a majority award imposed an approximately USD 18.4 million liability on Princeton. After the DIFC Court set aside the award, Persephone sought permission to appeal, challenging the Court’s findings on the scope of the issues before the Tribunal, procedural fairness and the setting aside of the entire award.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":401259,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[119674,119673,119387,116762,119676,119672,80079,119675],"class_list":["post-401254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-diac-arbitration-award","tag-difc-arbitration","tag-difc-arbitration-law","tag-difc-courts","tag-permission-to-appeal","tag-princeton-v-persephone","tag-setting-aside-arbitral-award","tag-usd-18-4-million-arbitral-award"],"yoast_head":"\nDIFC Court rejects Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"DIFC Court rejects Persephone\u2019s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"headline\":\"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1170,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"DIAC arbitration award\",\"DIFC arbitration\",\"DIFC Arbitration Law\",\"DIFC Courts\",\"permission to appeal\",\"Princeton v Persephone\",\"Setting aside arbitral award\",\"USD 18.4 million arbitral award\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/\",\"name\":\"DIFC Court rejects Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/11\\\/14\\\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/arushi\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration | SCC Times","description":"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone\u2019s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute","og_description":"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/"},"author":{"name":"Arushi","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"headline":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute","datePublished":"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/"},"wordCount":1170,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp","keywords":["DIAC arbitration award","DIFC arbitration","DIFC Arbitration Law","DIFC Courts","permission to appeal","Princeton v Persephone","Setting aside arbitral award","USD 18.4 million arbitral award"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/","name":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp","datePublished":"2026-11-14T06:30:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"DIFC Court rejected Persephone's appeal against the setting aside of a USD 18.4 million DIAC award in its dispute with Princeton.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Persephone's appeal in Princeton arbitration"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/14\/difc-court-rejects-persephone-appeal-princeton-arbitration\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"DIFC Court rejects Persephone’s permission to appeal against setting aside of USD 18.4 million arbitral award in Princeton dispute"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Persephones-appeal-in-Princeton-arbitration.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=401254"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":401261,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401254\/revisions\/401261"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/401259"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=401254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=401254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=401254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}