Latest articles
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2016] DIFC CFI 009 — Permission to appeal granted (14 December 2016)
The dispute between Vegie Bar LLC and Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties (ENBD Properties) originated in the Court of First Instance under case number CFI-009-2016. Following a judgment delivered by H.E.
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2016] DIFC CFI 009 — Case management order on non-party disclosure and security for costs (03 October 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for non-party disclosure and the application of security for costs against non-trading corporate claimants.
INNOV8 INTERIORS v THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP [2013] DIFC CFI 009 — Variation of Case Management Order (13 August 2013)
This order formalizes the procedural recalibration of the trial timeline in CFI 009/2013, reflecting a consensual adjustment between the parties regarding evidentiary submissions and the ultimate trial window.
INNOV8 L.L.C v THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP [2013] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural scheduling and case management (15 April 2013)
The lawsuit, registered under CFI 009/2013, involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Innov8 L.L.C, and the Defendant, The Industrial Group Limited. While the specific underlying cause of action—whether contractual, tortious, or otherwise—is not detailed in the procedural timetable, the…
MAZIN MOHAMMED AL MOALLIM v ETA STAR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS [2013] DIFC CFI 009 — Strict enforcement of service timelines (15 January 2013)
The lawsuit originated from a Part 7 claim filed by Mazin Mohammed Al Moallim against ETA Star Property Developers on 4 March 2012. The dispute, situated within the property development sector, stalled almost immediately due to the claimant's failure to progress the matter through the mandatory…
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2011] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural strictness in default judgment applications (08 May 2011)
The dispute originated from a claim filed by Anna Dadic on March 31, 2011, against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority. Initially, the claim form did not specify a liquidated sum, marking the amount as "TBD" (to be determined), indicating that the quantum of damages was a matter for…
LOVELLS MIDDLE EAST v MOHAMMED ALI MOHAMMED SHUAIB KHOURI [2010] DIFC CFI 009 — Default judgment for unpaid legal fees (03 June 2010)
The dispute centered on the recovery of outstanding legal fees owed by the Defendant, Mohammed Ali Mohammed Shuaib Khouri, to the Claimant, Lovells Middle East LLP. The Claimant initiated proceedings under claim number CFI 009/2010 to recover a liquidated sum for services rendered.
MICHAEL LAUGHLIN KILLIAN v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural directions for employment dispute resolution (23 August 2009)
The lawsuit concerns an employment dispute between the Claimant, Michael Laughlin Killian, and the Respondent, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Limited. The litigation centers on the terms of the employment relationship, with the parties clashing over the scope of the Particulars of Claim and the…
OASIS CRESCENT CAPITAL v MOHAMMED USMAN SALEEM BUTT [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Discharge of interim third party debt order (18 February 2009)
The dispute stems from ongoing execution proceedings initiated by Oasis Crescent Capital (DIFC) Limited against Mohammed Usman Saleem Butt. Following a series of procedural developments, including an appeal regarding a final employment settlement, the court had previously issued an Interim Third…
OASIS CRESCENT CAPITAL v MOHAMMED USMAN SALEEM [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Employment appeal and final settlement quantification (16 February 2009)
The dispute originated as an employment claim brought by Mohammed Usman Saleem against his former employer, Oasis Crescent Capital (DIFC) Limited. The matter was initially adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) under reference SCT E 030/2008.
OASIS CRESCENT CAPITAL v MOHAMMED USMAN SALEEM [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Appeal regarding final employment settlement (10 February 2009)
The dispute originated from an employment relationship between Oasis Crescent Capital (DIFC) Limited and its former employee, Mohammed Usman Saleem. The matter initially proceeded through the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) under reference SCT E 030/2008, concerning the final settlement of employment…
MOHAMMED USMAN SALEEM v OASIS CRESCENT CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural directions for Small Claims Tribunal appeal (05 January 2009)
The litigation involves a dispute between Mohammed Usman Saleem and Oasis Crescent Capital (DIFC) Limited, originating from an earlier matter adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), specifically SCT E 030/2008.
TAKUYA HONDA v SHINGO OKAMOTO [2025] DIFC CFI 008 — Conditional set aside of default judgment (27 May 2025)
The litigation arises from a claim filed by Takuya Honda on 4 February 2025, alleging negligence and fraud against the two respondents. The dispute centers on investment dealings governed by an Investment Agreement dated 7 August 2022 and a subsequent Restated Agreement dated 23 November 2023.
NED v NASTASIA [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Partial allowance of appeal regarding delay-related damages (09 July 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the recoverability of non-pecuniary damages for stress in residential renovation disputes while setting aside an erroneous award for accommodation costs.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Costs allocation following dismissal of time-barred employment claims (19 April 2024)
The litigation arose from the summary termination of Faizal Babu Moorkath by Expresso Telecom Group Ltd on 23 March 2022. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant, alongside the company’s CEO, was responsible for the "squandering and wasting" of USD 2 million through two specific transactions in…
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Employment limitation periods and the strict application of the six-month bar (14 March 2024)
The Court of First Instance confirms that the six-month limitation period for employment claims under the DIFC Employment Law 2019 is a jurisdictional threshold that cannot be bypassed, resulting in the dismissal of a multi-million AED claim.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for trial preparation (17 January 2024)
The litigation involves a dispute between Faizal Babu Moorkath, acting as Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim, and Expresso Telecom Group, acting as Defendant and Claimant in Counterclaim. The matter is currently before the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 008/2023.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Document production and disclosure obligations (11 December 2023)
The litigation concerns an employment dispute between Faizal Babu Moorkath and Expresso Telecom Group Ltd, filed under case number CFI 008/2023. The core of the dispute involves the Claimant’s attempt to secure comprehensive disclosure of internal documents relevant to his dismissal.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Retrospective procedural relief for late filings (01 May 2023)
The dispute in CFI 008/2023 centers on a procedural impasse regarding the timeline for the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group, to formalize its position in the litigation. Having been served with the claim, the Defendant failed to file its Defence and Counterclaim within the timeframe prescribed by…
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Consent order for procedural extension (23 February 2023)
The litigation involves a Part 7 claim initiated by Faizal Babu Moorkath against Expresso Telecom Group. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Claim Form on 26 January 2023, followed by the service of the Particulars of Claim on 31 January 2023.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Pre-Trial Review vacation by consent (03 January 2023)
A procedural order confirming the vacation of a scheduled Pre-Trial Review following successful adherence to the Case Management Conference timetable by both parties.
KPMG LLP v THE DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY [2022] DIFC CFI 008 CFI 007 — Regulatory transparency and the open justice principle (29 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the Financial Markets Tribunal’s refusal to grant private hearings or suppress the publication of regulatory Decision Notices, reinforcing the primacy of open justice in financial services oversight.
LPA v RESOIL CARIBBEAN [2021] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for USD 300,000 (07 June 2021)
The dispute concerns a claim for a liquidated sum brought by LPA (Middle East) Ltd against Resoil Caribbean SRL. The claimant initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance to recover a debt totaling USD 300,000.
LPA v RESOIL CARIBBEAN [2021] DIFC CFI 008 — Denial of default judgment due to service failures (25 April 2021)
This order clarifies the strict evidentiary threshold required by the DIFC Courts to satisfy service of process under Part 9 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) before a default judgment can be granted.