Latest articles
PETRA INVEST v SHUAA CAPITAL [2011] DIFC CFI 016 — Procedural joinder of third parties (17 January 2011)
The litigation between Petra Invest Limited and Shuaa Capital PSC, registered under CFI 016/2009, represents a complex commercial dispute within the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the underlying merits of the claim involve substantial financial interests, the specific procedural juncture…
PETRA INVEST v SHUAA CAPITAL [2010] DIFC CFI 016 — Stay of proceedings via consent order (16 May 2010)
The litigation involved Petra Invest Limited as the Claimant and Shuaa Capital PSC as the Defendant, with the involvement of Mohamed Abdel-Khaleq Mohammed Abu-Al Haj as a proposed third party.
PETRA INVEST v SHUAA CAPITAL [2010] DIFC CFI 016 — Conditional adjournment and security for costs (23 March 2010)
The litigation, initiated by Petra Invest Limited against Shuaa Capital PSC, reached a critical juncture in March 2010 when the Claimant sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.
PETRA INVEST v SHUAA CAPITAL [2010] DIFC CFI 016 — Formal cessation of legal representation (09 March 2010)
This order confirms the formal removal of Kennedys Legal Consultants from the record in the ongoing dispute between Petra Invest Limited and Shuaa Capital PSC.
PETRA INVEST v SHUAA CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 016 — Restricting non-party access to court records (18 August 2009)
The dispute between Petra Invest Limited and Shuaa Capital PSC centers on the management of information filed with the DIFC Court. At the heart of the controversy is the Claimant’s potential dissemination of the Claim Form and the associated "Paper Apart." Recognizing the potential for prejudice to…
WARD HOLDINGS LIMITED v MESHICO CORPORATION [2025] DIFC CFI 015 — Immediate judgment and possession order for commercial lease default (10 July 2025)
The dispute centers on the lease of "Podium 5" at the Waldorf Astoria Dubai International Financial Centre, where Meshico Corporation operated the "Puerto 99" restaurant. Following a series of missed rental payments, the Claimant, Ward Holdings Limited, terminated the lease agreement and sought to…
HORIZONS & CO LAW FIRM v ALBURJ REAL ESTATE [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for unpaid professional legal fees (04 April 2022)
The dispute arose from a contractual disagreement concerning unpaid professional legal services provided by the Claimant, Horizons & Co Law Firm, to the Defendant, Alburj Real Estate Limited.
HORIZON & CO LAW FIRM v ALBURJ REAL ESTATE [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for unpaid legal fees (01 April 2022)
The dispute centered on the recovery of unpaid professional fees for legal services rendered by the Claimant, Horizon & Co Law Firm, to the Defendant, Alburj Real Estate Limited. The Claimant initiated proceedings to recover a substantial outstanding balance for work performed, which remained…
UNIPER ENERGY DMCC v BANQUE DE COMMERCE ET DE PLACEMENTS SA [2021] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order regarding stay of proceedings (09 June 2021)
The dispute between Uniper Energy DMCC and Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA concerns a commercial claim brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 015/2021.
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Setting aside default judgment during the Covid-19 pandemic (10 August 2020)
The litigation centers on a consultancy agreement entered into on 3 February 2017, under which Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim agreed to provide "strategic consultancy services" to Falcon Golf Management. The contract stipulated an annual fee of USD 1,000,000, payable in two equal tranches.
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for USD 2,000,000 (23 April 2020)
The dispute originated from a counterclaim filed by Falcon Golf Management against the original claimant, Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim. While the initial proceedings were initiated by Buamaim, the focus of this specific order was the Defendant’s successful application for a default judgment…
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural failure in default judgment applications (21 April 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the strict evidentiary requirements for default judgment when service is effected outside the jurisdiction, emphasizing that procedural compliance with RDC 13.22 and 13.23 is non-negotiable.
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural failure in default judgment applications (19 April 2020)
The dispute centers on a procedural application for Default Judgment filed by the Defendant, Falcon Golf Management, against the Claimant, Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim. While the Claimant had failed to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence within the prescribed time limits under RDC 13.4,…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Dismissal of second permission to appeal for procedural non-compliance (11 October 2023)
The Chief Justice confirms the finality of employment litigation by dismissing a second application for permission to appeal due to fatal procedural delays and lack of jurisdictional nexus.
MUSSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Dismissal of stale employment claims for lack of territorial nexus (12 May 2023)
The Court of First Instance confirms that employment claims under successive fixed-term contracts are subject to strict six-year limitation periods and requires a demonstrable physical nexus to the DIFC for the application of DIFC employment statutes.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order staying costs assessment pending trial judgment (28 April 2023)
The litigation between Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam and Expresso Telecom Group has been characterized by a complex procedural history, involving multiple interlocutory applications and evolving employment law claims.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural directions for trial preparation (06 April 2023)
The litigation, which has spanned several years, reached a critical juncture following a Pre-Trial Review held on 3 April 2023. The Court identified persistent issues regarding the Claimant’s legal representation and the technical sufficiency of his pleadings.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural extension for document production (05 December 2022)
The litigation involves a long-standing employment claim initiated by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Expresso Telecom Group. The matter has been subject to multiple procedural adjustments, as evidenced by the history of the case, including [MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural extension for filing a Reply to Case Note (22 November 2022)
The lawsuit involves a long-standing employment-related dispute between the Claimant, Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam, and the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group. The current matter before the Court of First Instance concerns the management of the evidentiary and pleading timeline, specifically the…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural framework for trial preparation (21 October 2022)
The Court has mandated that the Claimant provide granular detail regarding the legal basis and financial value of his claim to ensure the Defendant is fully appraised of the case it must meet. This requirement is intended to narrow the issues and facilitate a more efficient trial process.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Judicial refusal to strike out pleadings despite persistent non-compliance (06 April 2022)
The Court of First Instance maintains the viability of an employment claim by rejecting a strike-out application, opting instead to enforce strict compliance with Court of Appeal directions regarding procedural amendments and outstanding costs.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order for procedural extension following change of counsel (08 March 2022)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam, and the Defendant, Express Telecom Group. Following the Defendant’s filing of a Strike Out application on 23 February 2022, the Claimant underwent a transition in legal counsel, formally noted by a Notice of Change…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Retrospective application of the 2019 Employment Law (05 September 2021)
This judgment addresses the critical question of whether the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 applies retrospectively to employment contracts that expired prior to its enactment, specifically regarding the six-month limitation period under Article 10.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural consolidation and waiver of costs (10 June 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Express Telecom Group. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing pleadings, the case has been characterized by a series of procedural developments regarding the scope of the claim and…