This case is a useful case when considering Article 44 of DIFC Law No. 1/2008. It was cited by Justice Steele in the DIFC Courts when rejecting a defendant's alternative case for an adjournment. Justice Steele stated the threshold question has to be whether as a matter of first impression the award is valid or invalid. In this case the plaintiffs who were contractors entered into a contract to carry out building work for the defendants but after a legislative change barred Israeli nationals from participating in commercial matters the contractors claimed for breach of contract. Enforcement proceedings began and the application was adjourned. The contractors' application for leave was declined, the application was adjourned for three months and the defendants were ordered to provide security in the total sum claimed including interest. The defendants appealed against the order, and the order was varied by the Court of Appeal.