Latest articles
RAFED AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Extension of service deadline following corporate insolvency (01 April 2018)
The dispute concerns a civil claim initiated by Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural variation of evidence filing deadlines (13 November 2017)
The litigation in CFI-014-2016 involves three Claimants—Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai—pursuing claims against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin (formerly Bank Sarasin & Co).
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Extension of service deadline following corporate insolvency (09 October 2017)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimants—Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and the Respondents, Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural sanctions and timeline variation (30 August 2017)
The DIFC Court of First Instance enforces strict compliance with procedural deadlines, imposing financial penalties and costs against claimants following a failed application for an extension of time.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Extension of service deadline following corporate insolvency (13 April 2017)
The litigation involves claims brought by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural extension for filing Defence (16 March 2017)
The litigation involves a high-stakes banking dispute initiated by Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural amendment to consent order for service of particulars (06 February 2017)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimants—Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and the Respondents, Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural timeline adjustment via consent order (21 November 2016)
The litigation, initiated by Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohammed Sulaiman Al Rifai, concerns a complex banking dispute involving Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK [2019] DIFC CFI 014 — Discontinuance following settlement (13 March 2019)
The litigation in CFI 014/2015 involved a complex multi-party commercial dispute initiated by Orient Insurance PJSC against a series of major financial institutions and a trading entity.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Final discontinuance and settlement of multi-party banking dispute (22 March 2017)
The litigation, registered under Case No. CFI-014-2015, involved a complex multi-party dispute between Orient Insurance PJSC and a consortium of major financial institutions and a trading entity.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK N.V. [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Final discontinuance following global settlement (19 February 2017)
This consent order marks the formal conclusion of litigation between Orient Insurance and Credit Suisse AG, effectively terminating the DIFC Court proceedings following a comprehensive settlement of parallel ICC arbitration.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Stay of proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration (29 January 2017)
The litigation, initiated under case number CFI-014-2015, involves a complex multi-party dispute between the Claimant, Orient Insurance, and a series of financial institutions and trading entities.
Orient Insurance v ABN Amro Bank [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Dismissal of negative declaratory relief (19 May 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarified the limits of judicial intervention in insurance disputes, ruling that negative declarations are inappropriate where the underlying debt has been satisfied and no live controversy remains.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK N.V. [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Refusal of leave to appeal on jurisdictional grounds (01 March 2016)
The litigation involves a complex insurance dispute initiated by Orient Insurance PJSC against a series of major financial institutions and a trading entity. The defendants include several prominent banks and Glints Global General Trading LLC.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK N.V. [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Refusal of leave to appeal on jurisdictional grounds (22 February 2016)
Justice Roger Giles affirms the robust jurisdictional reach of the DIFC Courts, dismissing an attempt to invoke the UAE Civil Procedure Code to oust the Court's authority over a multi-party banking dispute.
ORIENT INSURANCE v ABN AMRO BANK N.V. [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Stay of proceedings in favour of ICC arbitration (27 January 2016)
The litigation involved a complex financial dispute initiated by Orient Insurance PJSC against a syndicate of major financial institutions and a trading entity. The defendants named in the proceedings included (1) ABN Amro Bank N.V., (2) Bank of Baroda, (3) Citi Bank N.A., (4) Credit Suisse AG, (5)…
EBERE GITONGA AHAMEFULE IHETU v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2014] DIFC CFI 014 — Discontinuance by consent (07 August 2014)
A procedural resolution of a banking dispute in the DIFC Court of First Instance, formalizing the withdrawal of claims through a court-sanctioned discontinuance order.
RUSSELL ERIC PERRY v OGER TELECOM [2012] DIFC CFI 014 — procedural closure via consent discontinuance (12 December 2012)
The litigation between Russell Eric Perry and Oger Telecom Ltd, registered under case number CFI 014/2012, represented a formal claim brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance.
RUSSELL ERIC PERRY v OGER TELECOM [2012] DIFC CFI 014 — procedural directions for reconciliation and trial preparation (08 October 2012)
The dispute between Russell Eric Perry and Oger Telecom, initiated under claim number CFI 014/2012, centers on the court’s insistence that the parties exhaust "justice by reconciliation" before proceeding to full-scale document production.
TAALEEM v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 014 — Consent order dismissing appeal (25 November 2015)
The litigation in CFI 014/2010 involves a complex commercial dispute between the Claimant, Taaleem, and two defendants: National Bonds Corporation and Deyaar Development. The case has been a long-standing fixture of the DIFC Court of First Instance, involving multiple procedural stages, including…
TAALEEM v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 014 — Leave to appeal granted on novation and Murabaha profit charges (18 November 2015)
The litigation centers on the financial obligations arising from the Sky Gardens real estate project. Taaleem PJSC sought to transfer its rights and obligations regarding the project to Deyaar Development, a move that implicated financing previously provided by National Bonds Corporation (NBC).
TAALEEM P.J.S.C. v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 014 — Disclosure order regarding judgment debt enforcement (20 August 2015)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of a significant Judgment Debt owed by Deyaar Development (the Judgment Debtor) to National Bonds Corporation (the Judgment Creditor). Following a series of prior rulings, including the Judgment of Justice Sir David Steel on 19 February 2014 and 23 March 2015,…
TAALEEM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT [2015] DIFC CFI 014 — Denial of leave to appeal against clarification of liability (03 August 2015)
The Chief Justice affirms the finality of earlier findings by refusing to allow a second attempt at appealing substantive liability issues under the guise of seeking judgment clarification.
TAALEEM v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 014 — Registrar’s order for interim payment of costs (02 July 2015)
The litigation in CFI 014/2010 involves a multi-party dispute initiated by Taaleem P.J.S.C. against National Bonds Corporation (the First Defendant) and Deyaar Development (the Second Defendant).