Latest articles
VTJ v MOHD AMMAR AL HASSAN [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Dismissal of non-party disclosure application (02 May 2018)
In the matter of CFI-020-2017, the Claimant, VTJ Limited, initiated a formal request for judicial intervention regarding the production of evidence. Specifically, the Claimant filed an Application Notice, identified as CFI-020-2017/2, on 25 April 2018.
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Consent order extending stay of proceedings (13 February 2017)
This order formalizes the continued suspension of litigation between Brookfield Multiplex Constructions and the DIFC entities, maintaining the status quo established in previous consent orders until 30 March 2017.
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Extension of stay of proceedings (15 January 2017)
The litigation involves a construction dispute between Brookfield Multiplex Constructions LLC and the respondents, DIFC Investments LLC and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority.
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Consent order staying proceedings (04 August 2016)
The litigation involved a construction-related dispute between the Claimant, Brookfield Multiplex Constructions LLC, and the Respondents, DIFC Investments LLC and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority.
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Anti-suit injunctions and the preservation of evidence (28 July 2016)
The dispute arose from a construction contract for "The Gate" building, which contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be submitted to arbitration in the Emirate of Dubai. Brookfield sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondents from pursuing Lawsuit No.
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Anti-suit injunctions and arbitration primacy (30 June 2016)
The dispute arose from a long-standing construction contract executed on 22 May 2003. Brookfield Multiplex Constructions LLC (the Claimant) sought an urgent interim injunction to restrain the Respondents, DIFC Investments LLC and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority, from continuing…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Consent order for discontinuance (05 November 2018)
The litigation identified as CFI 020/2015 involved two claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, who initiated proceedings against the defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Consent order for stay and release of security (07 May 2018)
The claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, initiated proceedings against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited under claim number CFI-020-2015.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Case management order for complex expert evidence and trial preparation (07 February 2018)
The lawsuit involves claims brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The dispute centers on professional services rendered by the defendant, specifically regarding a report provided to the…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Document production and privilege ruling (20 September 2017)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammed Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, and the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Amended case management order following statement of case amendments (22 May 2017)
The litigation involves claims brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. While the underlying merits concern professional services rendered by the defendant, the specific procedural posture of…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Case Management Order (16 April 2017)
The litigation involves a professional negligence claim brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammed Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Compelling production of the Saudi Capital Markets Authority report (05 February 2017)
The dispute centers on a request for the production of a specific forensic or advisory report that sits at the heart of the evidentiary record. The Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, initiated an application on 31 January 2017 to force the…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural extension by consent (24 November 2016)
The litigation involves two claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, who initiated proceedings against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited under case number CFI-020-2015.
Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Leave to appeal granted (18 February 2016)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bil Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, and the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The matter reached a significant procedural impasse following an order issued by H.E.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Jurisdiction over DIFC-registered entities in cross-border tort claims (03 January 2016)
The dispute arises from a consultancy engagement involving the Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG), a construction firm specializing in the oil and gas sector. The Claimants, Saudi nationals and founding shareholders of MMG, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East)…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural adjournment by consent (04 October 2015)
The litigation involves Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil as Claimants against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The dispute reached a procedural juncture regarding the timeline for the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-020-2015/1.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds (04 July 2018)
The Court of First Instance enters judgment against a former executive for systematic fraud and the misappropriation of corporate funds, reinforcing the strict application of fiduciary duties and the Court's intolerance for procedural obstruction.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Adjournment denied for lack of medical evidence (02 July 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance rejects a last-minute application for trial adjournment, underscoring the necessity of robust, contemporary medical evidence when a litigant claims incapacity to participate in proceedings.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management and refusal of trial adjournment (13 June 2018)
The dispute between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh involves complex allegations and has been subject to extensive procedural history within the DIFC Courts. By June 2018, the matter had reached a critical juncture with a Progress Monitoring Hearing (PMH) scheduled for 7 June 2018.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Reasons for the dismissal of procedural applications (07 February 2018)
The litigation concerns a long-standing dispute involving allegations of fraud and dishonesty brought by GFH Capital Limited against David Lawrence Haigh. The case has a "tortuous history" dating back to its commencement on 22 May 2014.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural discipline and the containment of vexatious applications (11 January 2018)
The litigation between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh has been characterized by a series of aggressive procedural maneuvers by the Defendant. In the lead-up to the hearing on 13 and 14 December 2017, Mr.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management of complex counterclaims and joinder applications (25 November 2017)
In the proceedings of CFI-020-2014, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, submitted a document titled “Amended Defence and Counterclaim” and a supporting witness statement without properly serving them on the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited, or adhering to the standard procedural requirements of the…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural directions for joinder of parties (17 October 2017)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke issues an amended procedural order establishing a strict evidentiary timetable for the Defendant’s application to add new parties to the long-running CFI 020/2014 litigation.