Latest articles
MR ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Disclosure order for Redfern Schedule production (27 January 2015)
The dispute between Mr Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners Limited centers on the Claimant’s demand for the production of documents deemed necessary to substantiate his claims.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CFI 015 — Employment dispute and strike-out application (08 October 2014)
The Court of First Instance addresses the limits of strike-out applications in employment litigation, clarifying that factual allegations underpinning a counterclaim remain viable even when specific heads of relief are abandoned.
NICHOLAS JAMES GRIFFIN v NOVAAR [2012] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for failure to respond (26 April 2012)
The litigation initiated by Nicholas James Griffin against Novaar in CFI 015/2012 centered on a monetary claim totaling US$105,000. The dispute arose from the Defendant’s failure to engage with the formal court process after the claim was served.
ATUL DHAWAN & CHARU DHAWAN v AMLAK FINANCE [2009] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for failure to acknowledge service (28 July 2009)
The dispute centered on a financial claim initiated by Atul Dhawan and Charu Dhawan against Amlak Finance PJSC. The Claimants sought recovery of a principal sum totaling AED 582,024.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPAIN ELITE S.L.- BSE [2023] DIFC CFI 014 — Order of Discontinuance (04 January 2023)
The litigation initiated by Dar Al Mal Limited against Barcelona Spain Elite S.L.- BSE under case number CFI 014/2022 represented a formal attempt by the Claimant to seek judicial intervention within the DIFC jurisdiction.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPORTS ELITE SL BSE [2022] DIFC CFI 014 — Permission to appeal granted following procedural dispute (19 July 2022)
The dispute centers on a challenge to an Order issued by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 23 May 2022. Dar Al Mal Limited (the Claimant/Appellant) sought to overturn this decision, alleging that the original proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities.
UAE ENTERPRISES BUILDING MATERIAL TRADING v ARABTEC CONSTRUCTION [2021] DIFC CFI 014 — Default judgment for unpaid construction invoices (07 March 2021)
The dispute centers on the recovery of outstanding payments for building materials supplied by the Claimant to the Defendant. The Claimant sought to enforce payment for a series of invoices that remained unpaid, leading to the filing of a formal claim in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Order of Discontinuance following settlement (16 November 2020)
The litigation involved a real estate dispute between the Claimant, Hazrat Ali, and the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. While the specific underlying contractual grievances were not detailed in the final order, the case had been active since 2019 and involved multiple procedural…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Stay of proceedings pending further developments (04 June 2020)
The litigation in CFI 014/2019 concerns a real estate dispute between the Applicant, Hazrat Ali, and the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. While the underlying merits of the claim involve complex contractual obligations within the real estate sector, the immediate procedural focus…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural stay of proceedings (02 April 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hazrat Ali against Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC, a real estate entity operating within the jurisdiction. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim are not detailed in this specific procedural order, the case has been characterized by a…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural amendment of evidence filing deadlines (23 March 2020)
The lawsuit involves a real estate claim brought by the Claimant, Hazrat Ali, against the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. The litigation has been characterized by significant procedural complexity, including a period where the proceedings were stayed pending a determination by…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Judicial Officer order permitting legal counsel to cease acting (16 March 2020)
The lawsuit concerns a real estate dispute between the Claimant, Hazrat Ali, and the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ. The specific procedural matter at stake on 16 March 2020 was an application by the Claimant’s legal representatives, Global Advocacy and Legal Counsel, to cease acting…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural amendment of evidence filing deadlines (22 January 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hazrat Ali against Arloid Real Estate Development FZ, a dispute rooted in the real estate sector within the DIFC jurisdiction. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the current procedural posture…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural amendment and evidence scheduling (07 January 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hazrat Ali against Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. The current dispute centers on the defendant's request to rectify its initial procedural filings to ensure the case proceeds on a correct footing.
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FZ [2019] DIFC CFI 014 — Lifting of stay following Joint Judicial Committee determination (26 December 2019)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hazrat Ali against Arloid Real Estate Development FZ, a dispute rooted in the real estate sector. The proceedings were initially halted due to a challenge regarding the appropriate forum for the adjudication of the claim.
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2019] DIFC CFI 014 — Stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (23 July 2019)
The lawsuit involves a real estate-related claim brought by Hazrat Ali against Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. While the specific underlying merits of the claim—such as the nature of the property transaction or the specific breach of contract alleged—are not detailed in the consent order,…
NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO. v DODSAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Immediate judgment and partial admission (09 August 2018)
The dispute arose from two equipment hire agreements, identified as the GC-31 and EWTIP agreements, both dated 24 February 2016. National Contracting Co. Ltd. (the Claimant), a Kuwaiti company acting as an exclusive agent for Aggreko Middle East, sought to recover overdue hire charges from Dodsal…
NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO. v DODSAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — De novo review of default judgment denial (06 June 2018)
This order clarifies the scope of the 4pm filing deadline under RDC 2.17, confirming that private extensions of time between parties do not automatically incorporate the Court’s standard business-hour cut-off.
NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO. v DODSAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural bar to default judgment (15 May 2018)
The dispute arises from a claim filed by National Contracting Co. Ltd. against Dodsal Engineering & Construction Pte. Limited. On 23 April 2018, the Claimant submitted a formal request for a Default Judgment to the DIFC Court of First Instance, invoking Rule 13.1 (1) and (2) of the Rules of the…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Final discontinuance via confidential settlement (22 April 2020)
The litigation, registered under case number CFI 014/2016, involved a complex dispute between three claimants—Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and two defendants, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd.
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural consolidation of insolvency and stay applications (30 October 2018)
The dispute centers on a complex, multi-year litigation involving Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi and his co-claimants against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and its successor, Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural extension for service of claim form against entity in liquidation (10 October 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants a further six-month extension for the service of a Part 7 Claim Form upon a respondent currently undergoing court-ordered liquidation.
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Permission to appeal granted but stay of proceedings refused (09 August 2018)
The litigation concerns a high-stakes banking dispute brought by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited (in liquidation) and Bank J Safra Sarasin.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Costs award following unsuccessful strike-out application (09 July 2018)
The litigation involves a complex banking dispute initiated by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and its parent entity, Bank J. Safra Sarasin Limited.