Latest articles
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural directions on adding parties (11 October 2017)
The litigation between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh has been characterized by extensive procedural complexity and multiple interlocutory skirmishes. In this specific instance, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought to expand the scope of the existing proceedings by filing an…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural limitations on litigant-in-person applications and Pro Bono funding (16 May 2017)
In the underlying litigation, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought various forms of relief, including a financial order against the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited. Specifically, the Defendant requested that the Court compel the Claimant to pay GBP 28,800 to the Priory Hospital, alleging that…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Granting leave to appeal despite procedural delays (02 March 2017)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its discretion to permit an out-of-time appeal, balancing procedural strictness against the necessity of ensuring a fair hearing in a matter of significant public interest.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Immediate judgment and indemnity costs for misappropriation (10 November 2016)
The dispute centered on the actions of the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, who was found to have misappropriated significant sums of money from the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited. The litigation involved allegations of fraud and a breach of trust, with the Claimant seeking recovery of funds that…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Pro Bono funding and procedural management of multiple appeals (10 August 2016)
The dispute centered on the Appellant’s request for financial assistance to engage legal counsel to manage four pending appeals and an Immediate Judgment application against GFH Capital Limited.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management of recusal, fee waivers, and legal representation (31 August 2015)
Justice Sir David Steel issues a series of procedural directions addressing the Defendant’s requests for recusal and fee waivers while formalizing the entry of new legal counsel into the ongoing litigation.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial restraint in freezing order variations (28 June 2015)
The lawsuit concerns a high-stakes fraud claim brought by GFH Capital Limited against David Lawrence Haigh. The dispute centers on allegations of breach of trust and dishonesty, with the Claimant asserting a proprietary interest in the disputed monies.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial control over frozen assets for legal expenses (14 May 2015)
This order addresses the limits of a defendant’s entitlement to access frozen assets for legal defense costs, emphasizing the requirement for transparency and proportionality in the face of alleged fraud.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Refusal to vary freezing order for legal fees (03 May 2015)
The defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought a variation of the freezing order originally granted by Deputy Chief Justice Sir John Chadwick on 18 June 2014. The application aimed to secure the release of £550,000 from frozen funds to settle outstanding legal fees and disbursements.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Variation of freezing order living expenses (16 April 2015)
The underlying dispute involves a substantial claim brought by GFH Capital Limited against its former employee, David Lawrence Haigh, involving allegations of misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial scrutiny of freezing order variations for legal expenses and living costs (25 March 2015)
The Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought a significant variation to the existing freezing order, which had been in place since June 2014 to secure a claim of approximately US$ 5 million.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural architecture for complex litigation (09 February 2015)
The lawsuit involves a complex commercial dispute between the Claimant, GFH Capital, and the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh. While the underlying merits of the claim are not detailed in this specific order, the litigation is clearly of significant complexity, necessitating a structured approach to…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial refusal of procedural extensions despite party consensus (19 January 2015)
The dispute between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh involves complex litigation within the DIFC Court of First Instance. In the context of this specific procedural application, the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited, sought to defer the filing of its Reply to the Defendant’s Defence until…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2014] DIFC CFI 020 — Disclosure and inspection of forensic evidence (30 September 2014)
The dispute centers on a contentious disclosure application brought by the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, against the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited. The Defendant sought an expansive order for the disclosure or delivery up of various documents for forensic investigation, casting doubt on the…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2014] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial assistance and the issuance of a Letter of Request to the Dubai Courts (06 August 2014)
The dispute between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh involves complex allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds. As the litigation progressed within the DIFC Court of First Instance, the Claimant identified a necessity to obtain judicial assistance from the…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2014] DIFC CFI 020 — Search Order and procedural enforcement (12 June 2014)
The DIFC Court of First Instance issued a rigorous search order against David Lawrence Haigh, mandating the immediate production of documents and providing the Claimant with supervised access to premises and electronic data.
SARINTON TRADING v MR ANDREAS MICHAEL REICHMUTH [2013] DIFC CFI 020 — Default judgment on real estate assignment (17 December 2013)
The litigation centered on the ownership and assignment of contractual rights pertaining to four specific luxury units located in the Park Towers development within the Dubai International Financial Centre.
SPECTRUM UAE v XEROX EMIRATES [2013] DIFC CFI 020 — Strike out following settlement (10 January 2013)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the conclusion of CFI 020/2012, striking the matter from the court list after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
RA DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL LIMITED [2012] DIFC CFI 020 — Extension of time for insolvency proceedings (24 December 2012)
The underlying dispute involves the Claimants, RA Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and RA Dr Georg Wiederkehr, seeking to pursue legal action in the name of the Defendant, Diwan Capital Limited, which is currently in liquidation.
DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL LIMITED [2012] DIFC CFI 020 — procedural management of confidential settlement schedules (26 July 2012)
The litigation in CFI 020/2010 involved Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and Dr Georg Wiederkehr as Claimants against Diwan Capital Limited, a respondent entity then in liquidation. The dispute centers on the procedural finalization of an order following a substantive hearing held on 9 July 2012.
RA DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL [2012] DIFC CFI 020 — Extension of compliance deadlines (17 April 2012)
The dispute involves RA Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and RA Dr Georg Wiederkehr as claimants against Diwan Capital Limited. The litigation, registered under CFI 020/2010, reached a juncture where the court found it necessary to intervene regarding the timeline for procedural compliance.
RA DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL [2011] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural stay and liquidation directions (23 June 2011)
The litigation involving RA Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and RA Dr Georg Wiederkehr against Diwan Capital Limited reached a point where the court determined that the continuation of standard adversarial proceedings was no longer appropriate given the company's insolvency status.
RA DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL [2011] DIFC CFI 020 — procedural amendment and liquidator oversight (10 March 2011)
The Claimants, RA Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and RA Dr Georg Wiederkehr, sought and were granted permission to refine their case against Diwan Capital Limited. The court’s order focused on the formalization of the Claimants' position through the filing of an amended document that had been previously…
RA DR ALFRED WIEDERKEHR v DIWAN CAPITAL [2010] DIFC CFI 020 — procedural stay for liquidator directions (02 November 2010)
The litigation involves a claim brought by RA Dr Alfred Wiederkehr and RA Dr Georg Wiederkehr against Diwan Capital Limited. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain to be fully ventilated, the current procedural posture centers on the status of the defendant company, which is…