Latest articles
TATIANA MIKHAILOVNA AKHMEDOVA v FARKHAD TEIMUR OGLY AKHMEDOV [2018] DIFC CFI 011 — Jurisdiction challenge and freezing order continuation (11 March 2018)
The dispute arises from the enforcement efforts of Tatiana Mikhailovna Akhmedova against her former spouse, Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov, and the entity Straight Establishment. The claimant sought to secure assets allegedly held by the respondents, leading to the issuance of a Freezing Order on 8…
Tatiana Mikhavilovna Akhmedova v Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov [2018] DIFC CFI 011 — Freezing order and asset preservation (08 February 2018)
The lawsuit concerns the enforcement of substantial financial obligations against the First Respondent, Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov, and the Second Respondent, Straight Establishment, a Liechtenstein-based entity.
AHMED MAJED MOHAMAD LUTFI KABBARA v EFG-HERMES UAE [2017] DIFC CFI 011 — Final resolution via consent order (25 September 2017)
The litigation involved a claim brought by Ahmed Majed Mohamad Lutfi Kabbara against EFG-Hermes UAE Limited, which eventually escalated to include an appeal against a prior judicial order.
AHMED MAJED MOHAMAD LUTFI KABBARA v EFG-HERMES UAE [2017] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural timeline for appeal and reply (26 July 2017)
A procedural consent order issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance establishing strict deadlines for the filing of a Reply to the Defence and opposition submissions regarding an Application to Appeal.
AHMAD MAJED MOHAMAD LUTFI KABBARA v EFG-HERMES UAE [2017] DIFC CFI 011 — Costs allocation for failed applications and procedural delay (18 June 2017)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to secure the cancellation of his employment visa while substantive employment claims remained unresolved. The Claimant sought to have his visa status regularized without prejudice to his ongoing financial claims against EFG-Hermes UAE.
AHMED MAJED MOHAMAD LUTFI KABBARA v EFG-HERMES UAE [2017] DIFC CFI 011 — procedural transition from Part 8 to Part 7 (11 May 2017)
The dispute between Ahmed Majed Mohamad Lutfi Kabbara and EFG-Hermes UAE Limited originated as a claim filed under Part 8 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Part 8 is typically reserved for claims where there is no substantial dispute of fact or where the issue is primarily one of law, allowing…
AHMED MAJED MOHAMAD LUTFI KABBARA v EFG-HERMES UAE [2017] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural dismissal of Part 8 application (12 April 2017)
The Claimant, Ahmed Majed Mohamad Lutfi Kabbara, sought to utilize the Part 8 procedure of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to compel his former employer, EFG-Hermes UAE Limited, to provide specific documentation and a formal written statement regarding his dismissal.
SHEIKH SULTAN KHALIFA SULTAN AL NEHAYAN v ABU AL HAJ HOLDING [2016] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural deadlock and service requirements (29 December 2016)
The litigation initiated by Sheikh Sultan Khalifa Sultan Al Nehayan, Sheikh Malek Mahmoud Faisal Malek Al Sabah, and Andre Gauthier involves a complex multi-party structure, naming nine distinct defendants, including Abu Al Haj Holding Ltd.
HAVAS WORLDWIDE MIDDLE EAST v SOBHA DEVELOPERS [2015] DIFC CFI 011 — Order of Discontinuance (29 July 2015)
The litigation between Havas Worldwide Middle East and Sobha Developers originated from a commercial disagreement that necessitated the intervention of the DIFC Court of First Instance.
MONA SINAKI v OPENLINK INTERNATIONAL [2013] DIFC CFI 011 — Dismissal of appeal against Small Claims Tribunal judgment (19 September 2013)
The dispute originated from a claim filed by Mona Sinaki against her former employer, Openlink International, seeking AED 373,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal and alleged breaches of her employment contract.
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2015] DIFC CFI 011 — Costs and the rejection of English Employment Tribunal practice (03 November 2015)
The litigation arose from the termination of the Claimant’s employment in a senior management position. Following the termination on 31 January 2012, Hana Al Herz initiated proceedings against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority, seeking a broad range of remedies.
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 011 — Employment discrimination and termination dispute (10 July 2013)
The Claimant, Hana Al Herz, sought legal redress following her suspension and subsequent termination by the DIFC Authority (DIFCA). Her primary contention was that the employer’s actions were not merely a response to a perceived conflict of interest, but were rooted in discriminatory practices…
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 011 — Case Management Order (28 August 2012)
The litigation between Hana Al Herz and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) concerns a dispute brought before the Court of First Instance under case number CFI-011/2012.
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural extension and cost assessment (09 May 2012)
The dispute in CFI 011/2012 centered on a procedural application regarding the timeline for the filing of the Defence. Hana Al Herz, acting as the Claimant, found herself in a position where the standard procedural deadlines required adjustment, necessitating a formal application to the Court of…
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Discharge of stay and grant of leave to appeal (08 July 2009)
The underlying dispute in CFI 011/2009 involves Amarjeet Singh Dhir (the Applicant) and the Respondents, Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE. Following an adverse ruling on 11 June 2009, the Applicant sought to maintain a stay of execution to prevent the immediate enforcement of…
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Discharge of freezing injunction and liability for damages (11 June 2009)
The lawsuit concerns a property-related dispute where the Applicant, Amarjeet Singh Dhir, sought to restrain the Respondents, Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE, from dealing with certain assets.
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Stay of disclosure obligations pending return date (19 May 2009)
The dispute arises from a series of claims brought by Amarjeet Singh Dhir, Five River Properties LLC, and Renaissance Holdings and Developers FZE against Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE.
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural directions for evidence and skeleton arguments (17 May 2009)
The litigation involves Amarjeet Singh Dhir as the Applicant against two Respondents: Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE. While the underlying merits of the claim are not detailed in this specific direction, the case is part of a broader series of proceedings concerning asset…
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Procedural management of interlocutory applications (14 May 2009)
The DIFC Court of First Instance establishes a strict timeline for written submissions to resolve procedural disputes without the need for an oral hearing.
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 011 — Freezing injunction and asset disclosure order (23 April 2009)
The lawsuit concerns an application for a freezing injunction initiated by Amarjeet Singh Dhir against two respondents: Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE. The core of the dispute involves the protection of specific real estate assets located in the Dubai Waterfront development,…
FURSA CONSULTING v BAY GATE INVESTMENT [2026] DIFC CFI 010 — Procedural failure in costs assessment (23 January 2026)
This order clarifies the strict procedural requirements for obtaining a Default Costs Certificate in the DIFC Courts, emphasizing that general application notices cannot bypass mandatory filing protocols.
NIGEL v NASRI [2024] DIFC CFI 010 — Joinder of parties and agency liability in contract disputes (15 July 2024)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s attempt to expand the scope of its litigation by adding "Nadim" as a Second Defendant to an existing breach of contract claim against "Nasri." The Claimant argued that Nadim was either a direct party to the engagement letter or acted as an agent for the…
MIKHART v MERAF [2023] DIFC CFI 010 — Interest and costs recovery following default judgment (22 September 2023)
This order clarifies the court's approach to rectifying calculation errors in particulars of claim when awarding post-judgment interest and costs in undefended proceedings.
LYLE v LAMAR [2022] DIFC CFI 010 — Employment contract formation and jurisdictional nexus (11 March 2022)
The dispute originated from an employment claim filed by the Claimant, Lyle, against two entities: Lamar (the First Defendant, a DIFC-registered entity) and Lamarluther (the Second Defendant, an English-registered parent company).