Latest articles
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural expansion of commercial litigation (25 March 2013)
This Case Management Order details the procedural expansion of a long-running banking dispute, granting the Defendant leave to join third parties and establishing a rigorous timetable for disclosure and expert evidence leading to a 2013 trial.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2011] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order for lack of jurisdiction (06 April 2011)
The litigation involved a dispute between the Claimant, Corinth Pipeworks S.A., and the Defendant, Barclays Bank PLC. The proceedings were initiated via a Claim Form filed on 29 September 2010.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAY'S BANK PLC [2010] DIFC CFI 024 — Jurisdiction over non-DIFC activities of Centre Establishments (09 February 2011)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the status of a "Centre Establishment" does not grant the Court universal jurisdiction over all global activities of an international corporation, limiting it instead to disputes connected with the entity's DIFC-authorized business.
MAHUTA v MANWARI [2023] DIFC CFI 023 — SCT appeal review and expert report finality (28 April 2023)
This judgment clarifies the limited scope of appellate review for Small Claims Tribunal decisions and affirms the judicial reliance on expert findings in construction disputes.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2023] DIFC CFI 023 — Procedural withdrawal of legal representation (11 October 2023)
The litigation, spanning multiple case numbers including CFI 023/2021, CA 013/2021, and CA 015/2021, involves the Claimant, IGPL General Trading LLC, and a group of Respondents comprising Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, Westdene Investment Limited, and Paul Pretlove in his capacity as…
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Appellate permission for ground 5 (21 December 2021)
Chief Justice Zaki Azmi grants limited leave to appeal, allowing the Claimant to pursue ground 5 while upholding the refusal of ground 4 in the ongoing dispute between IGPL General Trading and three corporate respondents.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Permission to appeal and the threshold for immediate judgment (01 November 2021)
The underlying litigation involves a claim brought by IGPL General Trading LLC against three corporate entities: Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, and Westdene Investment Limited.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Consent order for appellate procedural extension (14 October 2021)
The litigation under CFI 023/2021 involves a multi-party commercial dispute where the Claimant, IGPL General Trading, has sought legal recourse against three distinct corporate entities: Hortin Holdings, Lodge Hill, and Westdene Investment.
IGPL General Trading v Hortin Holdings [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Costs determination following dismissal of specific performance claim (06 October 2021)
The litigation centered on a commercial real estate dispute involving an alleged contract to lease premises located in London. The Claimant, IGPL General Trading LLC, initiated the proceedings seeking a court order to compel the Defendants—Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, and Westdene…
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Procedural extension for immediate judgment filings (04 May 2021)
The Registrar grants a critical procedural extension to the Claimant, allowing for the submission of evidence in response to an Immediate Judgment Application and the filing of a Reply to the Defence.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Procedural extension of time by consent (29 April 2021)
The dispute involves IGPL General Trading as the Claimant and three corporate entities—Hortin Holdings, Lodge Hill, and Westdene Investment—as the Defendants. The matter reached the Court of First Instance regarding the management of the exchange of pleadings.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Retrospective extension of time for Acknowledgment of Service (24 March 2021)
The Registrar’s order in CFI 023/2021 clarifies the procedural threshold for granting retrospective extensions of time for filing an Acknowledgment of Service in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
MELOUD BENFETTA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2019] DIFC CFI 023 — Refusal of permission to appeal (07 January 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for appellate intervention, confirming that an application for permission to appeal must demonstrate a real prospect of success and clearly articulate specific errors of law or fact.
MELOUD BENFETTA v DAMAC PARK TOWER COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 023 — Strike out of defective property claim (07 August 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that failure to plead essential facts in a property dispute warrants immediate dismissal, reinforcing the necessity for rigorous adherence to RDC pleading standards.
MELOUD BENFETTA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 023 — Stay of proceedings pending strike-out application (29 April 2018)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Meloud Benfetta against DAMAC Park Towers Company, which has prompted the defendant to challenge the viability of the claimant's case at an early stage.
MELOUD BENFETTA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 023 — Setting aside a default judgment (18 March 2018)
The dispute originated from a claim filed by Meloud Benfetta against DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited. The procedural trajectory of the case took a significant turn on 25 September 2017, when Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser issued a default judgment against the Defendant.
MELOUD BENFETTA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2017] DIFC CFI 023 — Default judgment on void real estate SPA (25 September 2017)
The lawsuit centered on a contractual dispute arising from a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 24 November 2009, involving Unit No. (DFO/2A/215A Office). The Claimant, Meloud Benfetta, sought legal recourse against the Defendant, DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited, to rescind the agreement and…
WISSAM RIFAI SARRAJ v NAY LEBANESE RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2016] DIFC CFI 023 — Finality of employment appeal decisions (07 November 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the strict threshold for reopening appeal decisions, confirming that re-litigating previously rejected arguments without new evidence is insufficient to invoke RDC 44.179.
SAILESH KUMAR JATAINA v WADHAWAN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS [2014] DIFC CFI 023 — Amended Freezing Order (09 July 2014)
The DIFC Court of First Instance issues an amended freezing order against Wadhawan International Investments, restricting asset disposal up to AED 300,000 and mandating comprehensive disclosure of worldwide holdings.
REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI v ABDOURAHMAN MOHAMED MAHMOUD BOREH [2015] DIFC CFI 023 — Discharge of Freezing Order by consent (23 April 2015)
The litigation involved a complex dispute between the Republic of Djibouti, the Autorité des Ports et des Zones Franches de Djibouti, and the Port Autonome International de Djibouti against Mr. Abdourahman Mohamed Mahmoud Boreh.
SIMMONS AND SIMMONS MIDDLE EAST v MOHAMMED ABDEL-KHALEQ MOHAMMAD ABU-ALHAJ [2013] DIFC CFI 023 — Compelling disclosure for enforcement (05 November 2013)
The dispute arises from the Claimant, Simmons and Simmons Middle East LLP, seeking to recover outstanding sums following a Default Judgment issued against the First Defendant, Mohammed Abdel-Khaleq Mohammad Abu-Alhaj, and the Second Defendant, Petra Invest Ltd.
SIMMONS AND SIMMONS MIDDLE EAST v MOHAMMED ABDEL-KHALEQ MOHAMMAD ABU-ALHAJ [2013] DIFC CFI 023 — Registrar’s order for attendance to facilitate judgment enforcement (04 November 2013)
This order clarifies the procedural mechanisms available to judgment creditors in the DIFC to compel the disclosure of assets held by corporate entities following a default judgment.
SIMMONS AND SIMMONS MIDDLE EAST v MOHAMMED ABDEL-KHALEQ MOHAMMAD ABU-ALHAJ [2013] DIFC CFI 023 — Registrar order for oral examination of judgment debtor (01 September 2013)
This order marks a critical procedural step in the enforcement of a default judgment, compelling third-party disclosure to uncover the assets of a corporate judgment debtor.
SIMMONS AND SIMMONS MIDDLE EAST v PETRA INVEST LIMITED [2013] DIFC CFI 023 — Quantification of post-judgment interest (14 July 2013)
The dispute arose from unpaid invoices owed by the Second Defendant, Petra Invest Limited, to the Claimant, Simmons and Simmons Middle East LLP. Following a Default Judgment issued by the Registrar on 22 January 2013, the Claimant sought to formalize the interest components applicable to the…