Global Justice Foundation hires Julian Chaisse to review Dubai dispute standards

Global Justice Foundation has signed Professor Julian Chaisse to lead an independent academic and policy review of court-appointed expert procedures, conflicts of interest and investor protection tied to a long-running Dubai dispute. The study comes after the group raised concerns about apparent gaps in standards, alleged irregularities and billions of dollars in unresolved damages.

Why it matters: - The review targets how court-appointed expert evidence is handled in major disputes, where weak procedures can affect damage awards and fairness. - The findings could matter beyond one case because the dispute touches investor protection, conflict checks and expert standards used in financial centers. - Global Justice Foundation says the case shows a troubling gap between the standards used in this dispute and those used in leading financial hubs.

What happened: - Global Justice Foundation said September 9, 2026 that it signed an agreement with Professor Julian Chaisse to lead an independent academic and policy study. - The study will examine court-appointed expert procedures, conflicts of interest and investor protection. - The dispute stems from a long-running case in Dubai involving businessman Omar Ayesh, his company Tamweel Holding and Saudi Human Resources and Social Development Minister Ahmed Al-Rajhi. - The case has been active since 2009.

The details: - Tamweel Holding built Princess Tower, which Guinness World Records previously listed as the world’s tallest residential tower. - Gulf International Bank valued Tamweel Holding at about $5 billion in 2008. - An initial court-appointed expert committee gave Ayesh an estimated $1.8 billion compensation award for alleged wrongful appropriation of his rights. - The committee chair resigned before filing the final report after telling the court he had been threatened. - The resignation was accepted without an investigation. - Five additional experts later declined the assignment. - The case was then referred to the office of the ruler of Dubai, operating under Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. - That office’s expert committee said it lacked the resources to examine the case itself and hired Deloitte for forensic review. - Dubai procedures allowed documents to be corrected and resubmitted without consequences, and the expert committee accepted replaced and recreated documents from Al-Rajhi as evidence. - The committee then reached multibillion-dollar compensation conclusions that differed from the case record. - A Court of Appeal judge said the first expert report, based on Deloitte’s technical work, did not fully calculate damages and ordered a supplemental report to assess fair compensation for damages and lost profits. - The supplemental report did not calculate fair compensation or set a full damages figure. - The committee said lost profits had been calculated by reversing accounting provisions in Deloitte’s report. - Deloitte said it was never asked by the ruler’s office expert committee to calculate lost profits, so that work was never done. - The result left billions of dollars in compensation unresolved.

Between the lines: - Global Justice Foundation is framing the dispute as a test of procedural fairness, not just a single damages fight. - Chaisse’s role gives the review academic independence, and he will control the methodology, analysis and conclusions. - The case history suggests the fight may hinge as much on expert process and evidence handling as on the underlying commercial claims.

What's next: - Professor Chaisse will complete the study under standard scientific review and academic publishing procedures. - Global Justice Foundation said it will release the results publicly after that process is finished. - The review could add outside scrutiny to how the case was handled and how similar disputes should be managed in the future.

The bottom line: - Global Justice Foundation is turning a high-stakes Dubai dispute into a broader review of expert evidence, investor protection and procedural fairness.