Latest articles
SHIHAB KHALIL v SHUAA CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 017 — Jurisdictional boundaries in minority shareholder claims (07 December 2009)
The dispute centers on the Claimant, Shihab Khalil, a minority shareholder in Orion Holding Overseas Ltd (OHO), a company registered within the DIFC. Khalil alleged that the Defendant, Shuaa Capital, which held a 20 percent stake in OHO and exercised management control, engaged in systemic…
SHIHAB KHALIL v SHUAA CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 017 — Final dismissal and confidentiality restrictions (22 October 2009)
The litigation initiated by Shihab Khalil against Shuaa Capital reached a terminal point on 22 October 2009. Following the review of the Defendant’s application notice filed on 28 September 2009 and the Claimant’s subsequent response dated 7 October 2009, the Court determined that the proceedings…
SHIHAB KHALIL v SHUAA CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 017 — Consent order restricting document disclosure (02 September 2009)
The dispute between Shihab Khalil and Shuaa Capital, registered under CFI 017/2009, centered on the management and dissemination of sensitive litigation materials. Given the nature of the proceedings, the parties sought to limit the exposure of the Claim Form and associated evidentiary documents to…
OMAR BEN HALLAM v NATIXIS [2026] DIFC CFI 016 — Judicial refusal to anonymise employment dispute records (25 March 2026)
The dispute concerns an application by the Claimant, Omar Ben Hallam, to have his name removed or replaced with a neutral identifier in the Court’s published judgment dated 19 September 2025. This request followed an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to secure anonymity in the proceedings.
OMAR BEN HALLAM v NATIXIS [2026] DIFC CFI 016 — Retrospective application of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 regarding employment costs (03 February 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the "no-costs" regime introduced for employment disputes does not apply to proceedings where costs orders were issued prior to the Practice Direction's effective date.
OMAR BEN HALLAM v NATIXIS [2025] DIFC CFI 016 — Strike out of employment claims and immediate judgment on annual leave (19 September 2025)
The litigation arose from the termination of Omar Ben Hallam’s employment with Natixis, which spanned from 19 December 2021 to 24 January 2025. Following his departure, the Claimant initiated a Part 7 claim alleging that his termination was wrongful and that he had been subjected to discriminatory…
OMAR BEN HALLAM v NATIXIS [2025] DIFC CFI 016 — Strict procedural compliance for retrospective extensions of time (12 June 2025)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to secure a retrospective extension of time to file a Reply to the Defence, alongside a request to postpone the Case Management Conference (CMC).
ATLE SEBJORNSEN v AURUM LEASING [2023] DIFC CFI 016 — Default judgment for USD 1.74 million (17 April 2023)
The dispute concerns a significant financial claim brought by Atle Sebjornsen against Aurum Leasing Limited, totaling USD 1,740,000. While the underlying commercial transaction details remain private, the procedural record confirms that the claimant initiated formal proceedings in the DIFC Court of…
MAIRE v MAIZAH [2022] DIFC CFI 016 — Liability for unauthorized property alterations (02 June 2022)
The Court of Appeal clarifies tenant liability for property damage resulting from unauthorized installations, overturning a lower court decision regarding a flood caused by a faulty shattāf.
IGPL General Trading v Hortin Holdings [2021] DIFC CFI 016/023 — Procedural stay and costs submission obligations (20 September 2021)
This order clarifies the court’s approach to balancing the preservation of the status quo pending appeal against the necessity of concluding procedural matters like costs submissions at the first-instance level.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 016 — Immediate judgment on sham tenancy agreement (22 August 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants immediate judgment dismissing a claim for specific performance of a tenancy agreement, finding the document to be a sham lacking corporate authority.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 016 — Procedural management of an ex parte injunction discharge (10 May 2021)
The litigation concerns an interim injunction originally granted on 31 January 2021 following an ex parte application by IGPL General Trading. The respondents—Hortin Holdings, Lodge Hill, Westdene Investment, and Paul Pretlove (in his capacity as Receiver)—subsequently filed a Discharge Application…
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 016 — Consent order maintaining interim injunctive relief (15 February 2021)
The lawsuit, filed under Claim No. CFI 016/2021, centers on an application for interim injunctive relief initiated by the Applicant, IGPL General Trading LLC. The respondents include three corporate entities—Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, and Westdene Investment Limited—alongside Paul…
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 016 — Adjournment of injunctive return date (03 February 2021)
The litigation, initiated under case number CFI 016/2021, centers on an application for interim injunctive relief filed by the applicant, IGPL General Trading LLC. On 28 January 2021, the applicant sought an ex parte injunction against four respondents: Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited,…
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2021] DIFC CFI 016 — Enforcement of performance guarantees (25 March 2021)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of financial obligations owed by Dubai Islamic Bank to DIFC Investments Limited. The claimant sought judicial intervention to recover a substantial debt, which culminated in the Court of First Instance reviewing the claim form, witness statements, and the…
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Termination of enforcement and appellate litigation by consent (19 August 2020)
This consent order marks the final resolution of a series of enforcement applications and a concurrent appeal, effectively closing the procedural chapter between DIFC Investments and Dubai Islamic Bank.
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Denial of permission to appeal enforcement of performance guarantee (16 August 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that foreign precautionary attachment orders cannot obstruct the enforcement of irrevocable, on-demand performance guarantees within the DIFC jurisdiction.
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Default costs assessment following failure to file points of dispute (29 June 2020)
The dispute concerns the recovery of legal costs following earlier proceedings in the Court of First Instance. After the Claimant, DIFC Investments, initiated the assessment process by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment on 5 May 2020, the Respondent, Dubai Islamic Bank, failed to respond…
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Enforcement of performance guarantees (03 June 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the "status equivalent to cash" doctrine, ruling that an on-demand performance guarantee constitutes an independent, irrevocable obligation that cannot be defeated by external precautionary attachment orders.
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Payment on account of costs (19 May 2020)
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal costs incurred by DIFC Investments Ltd following the underlying proceedings against Dubai Islamic Bank. On 5 May 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Commencement of Assessment, submitting a Bill of Costs totaling AED 680,565.
DIFC Investments v Dubai Islamic Bank [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Interim payment of costs on account (17 May 2020)
The dispute centers on the recovery of legal costs incurred by the Claimant, DIFC Investments, following the underlying proceedings against the Respondent, Dubai Islamic Bank. On 5 May 2020, the Applicant initiated the formal assessment process by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment.
DIFC INVESTMENTS v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK [2020] DIFC CFI 016 — Denial of stay on costs assessment pending appeal (14 May 2020)
The litigation between DIFC Investments and Dubai Islamic Bank, registered under case number CFI 016/2020, reached a procedural impasse regarding the timing of cost recovery. Following the initial stages of the dispute, the Claimant, DIFC Investments, initiated detailed costs assessment proceedings…
MASHREQ AL ISLAMI FINANCE COMPANY v BABAR REHMAN [2019] DIFC CFI 016 — Granting permission to appeal (06 May 2019)
The litigation between Mashreq Al Islami Finance Company (formerly Al Badr Islamic Finance Company) and Mr. Babar Rehman concerns a long-standing dispute over financial obligations. Following a series of procedural developments, including earlier attempts to set aside default judgments as seen in…
MASHREQ AL ISLAMI FINANCE COMPANY v BABAR REHMAN [2019] DIFC CFI 016 — Indemnity costs assessment following Ijara dispute (08 April 2019)
The litigation between Mashreq Al Islami Finance Company and Babar Rehman involved significant procedural hurdles, including multiple applications to set aside default judgments and disputes regarding the admissibility of expert evidence on Sharia law.