The Commercial Court of the England and Wales High Court has refused relief to global law firm Clyde & Co LLP in a dispute with its partner Abhimanyu Jalan over bonus and remuneration, while observing that the firm’s conduct “verges on bullying.”.Justice Michael Green declined Clyde’s application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Jalan from pursuing proceedings before the Dubai Labour Court..The Court took note of Clyde’s correspondence threatening to withhold remuneration and terminate Jalan’s employment if he did not abandon proceedings in Dubai.“I think the tone and content of the correspondence from or on behalf of Clyde is unreasonably pressurising and verges on bullying.”The Court further described Clyde’s conduct as “disproportionately aggressive and unnecessary,” even while declining to award indemnity costs. The judgment also recorded that Clyde had accused Jalan of dishonesty in his witness statement - an allegation the Court described as “extraordinary” at this stage of proceedings.The judge added that treating a long-serving senior lawyer in this manner “does not reflect well” on the firm..The dispute centres on Jalan’s remuneration, including his bonus and placement within Clyde’s internal lockstep system of profit-sharing. Jalan claimed that the firm had wrongly reduced his entitlement and withheld amounts due. He thus initiated proceedings before the Dubai Labour Court seeking unpaid salary components, additional bonus and confirmation of his remuneration level.Clyde, however, argued that Jalan was bound by an arbitration clause in a 2006 “terms letter” requiring disputes to be resolved in London. The firm thus sought to restrain the Dubai proceedings..The Court held that Clyde failed to demonstrate a high degree of probability that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. The judge said,“I cannot be satisfied at this stage that Clyde has shown that there is a high probability of there being a still valid and binding arbitration agreement covering the matters in dispute in the Dubai Proceedings.”.The Court noted that multiple contractual documents, including UAE Ministry of Human Resources (MOHRE) employment contracts, pointed to the application of UAE labour law.“I find it difficult to understand how Clyde can casually seek to relegate the MOHRE contracts to meaningless pieces of paper.”.The Court emphasised that the MOHRE contracts formed part of the employment relationship, required compliance with UAE labour law and rendered inconsistent contractual terms void.It noted expert evidence stating that employment disputes under UAE law are generally non-arbitrable and must be resolved through statutory mechanisms before the Dubai Labour Court.The issue, the Court clarified, was not merely whether an arbitration clause could be valid under English law, but whether the parties intended such a clause to operate in light of their contractual arrangements..In a subsequent ruling on consequential matters, the Court refused Clyde permission to appeal, finding no real prospect of success. The Court also directed that the judgment be published, rejecting Clyde’s objections based on confidentiality and its expectation of privacy.It held that there was no significant confidential information in the ruling and that publication was in the public interest, particularly given the Court’s finding that no binding arbitration agreement existed..The Court ordered Clyde to pay Jalan’s costs of the proceedings, directing an interim payment of approximately £173,693, around 50% of his incurred costs.While declining to award indemnity costs, the Court reiterated that Clyde’s approach had been aggressive and unnecessary, though not sufficient to justify a higher costs order..Clyde & Co LLP was represented by Charles Béar KC, instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP..Jalan was represented by Diya Sen Gupta KC and Marlena Valles, instructed by Fox Williams LLP..[Read Judgment].[Read Consequential Judgment]
