Global Justice Foundation hires scholar to review Dubai dispute procedures

The Global Justice Foundation has signed Professor Julien Chaisse to lead an independent study of court-appointed expert proceedings, conflicts of interest and investor protection after what it says are irregularities in a long-running Dubai dispute involving Tameer Holding founder Omar Ayesh and Saudi minister Ahmad Al Rajhi. The findings will be published after academic peer review.

Why it matters: - The study could clarify whether court-appointed expert procedures in a major Dubai dispute met standards used in other financial centers. - The review also could inform future investor-protection disputes involving expert evidence, damages calculations and conflicts of interest. - The case involves claims of billions of dollars in compensation and a long-running fight between business and political figures.

What happened: - The Global Justice Foundation signed an agreement with Professor Julien Chaisse of the City University of Hong Kong School of Law to lead an independent academic and policy study. - The study will examine court-appointed expert proceedings, conflicts of interest and investor protection. - The foundation tied the move to what it sees as a gap between the standards used in this case and those in leading financial centers. - The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2009 by Omar Ayesh, founder of Tameer Holding, against his partner Ahmad Al Rajhi, now Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

The details: - Tameer Holding built Princess Tower, once recognized by Guinness World Records as the world’s tallest residential building. - GIB valued Tameer Holding at about $5 billion in 2008. - A court-appointed expert committee initially issued a preliminary valuation awarding Ayesh about $1.8 billion for what he says was the unlawful seizure of his rights. - Before the committee filed its final report, the chairman resigned after telling the court he had been threatened. - The resignation was accepted without an investigation. - Five additional experts later declined appointment. - The case was then referred to the Ruler’s Court of Dubai, operating under the authority of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. - The Ruler’s Court expert committee said it lacked the resources to study the case and hired Deloitte for a forensic examination. - The expert committee allowed Al Rajhi to replace and recreate materials, then accepted them as evidence. - The committee later reached compensation conclusions worth billions of dollars that GJF says contradict the underlying record. - An appeal court judge said the first report based on Deloitte’s work did not fully calculate damages and ordered a revised report covering fair compensation and lost profits. - The revised report still did not quantify the full amount of damages compensation. - The expert committee treated lost profits as if they were calculated by reversing accounting provisions in Deloitte’s report. - Deloitte’s account said calculating lost profits was never requested by the Ruler’s Court expert committee and was not performed. - Those issues left billions of dollars in compensation unquantified, according to the foundation.

Between the lines: - The foundation is framing the dispute as a test case for how courts handle outside experts when the record is contested and stakes are high. - The chairman’s alleged threat, the lack of an investigation and the refusal of additional experts add to questions about the integrity of the process. - The Deloitte reference matters because a forensic firm’s scope can shape how damages are measured and what a court later treats as settled fact. - Professor Chaisse will control the methodology, analysis and conclusions, which is meant to support the study’s independence. - The foundation says the results will go through standard peer review before publication.

What’s next: - Professor Chaisse will conduct the study and release findings after peer review and publication. - The review may add outside academic scrutiny to a dispute that has already moved through multiple expert processes and appeals. - The foundation did not announce a publication date.

The bottom line: - Global Justice Foundation is turning a high-stakes Dubai dispute into an independent study of how expert evidence, conflicts and damages calculations can shape major cross-border cases.