Latest articles
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Alternative service via email (09 April 2013)
The dispute concerns a claim brought by Barclays Bank PLC against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar. As is common in commercial banking litigation within the DIFC, the claimant encountered difficulties in effecting formal service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim upon the…
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of joinder application (09 November 2011)
Anna Dadic sought to consolidate or expand the scope of her litigation by filing an Application for Joinder of Claimants on 28 October 2011. This application spanned a series of nine separate case files, specifically CFI 008/2011 through CFI 019/2011, in which she named the Dubai International…
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of a multi-litigation application (20 September 2011)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the dismissal of a wide-ranging application by Anna Dadic, reinforcing the court's refusal to entertain requests for relief that lack substantive legal merit or procedural foundation.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008-019 — Judicial management of vexatious litigation (26 June 2011)
The litigation involved a series of nine distinct claims (CFI 008/2011 through CFI 019/2011) initiated by Anna Dadic against the Dubai International Financial Centre and the DIFC Authority.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008/2011 — Judicial intervention on repetitive litigation (09 June 2011)
The litigation landscape involving Anna Dadic and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) reached a critical juncture in June 2011, characterized by a proliferation of filings.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of a multi-million dollar default judgment application (08 May 2011)
The litigation concerns a substantial claim brought by Anna Dadic against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA). The dispute originated on March 31, 2011, when the Claimant filed a Claim Form 7/01, initially marking the quantum of the claim as "TBD," indicating that the…
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Final settlement and discontinuance of proceedings (25 September 2011)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments LLC involved a complex set of claims that spanned over a year of procedural activity within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Pre-trial procedural directions and disclosure management (26 June 2011)
Justice Sir John Chadwick issues comprehensive pre-trial directions addressing expert report redactions, supplemental witness evidence, and mandatory disclosure obligations in the lead-up to the September 2011 trial.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Re-timetabling of case management events (20 April 2011)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments LLC, initiated under case number CFI 008/2010, reached a juncture where the original case management schedule required significant adjustment.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Case management and mediation directives (08 November 2010)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Bisher Barazi against DIFC Investments LLC, which centers on a complex set of allegations, including a claim for unpaid salary. The dispute reached a critical juncture in late 2010, requiring the Court to intervene in the structure of the parties'…
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for responsive pleadings (22 July 2010)
The litigation in CFI 008/2010 concerns a dispute between the Claimant, Bisher Barazi, and the Respondent, DIFC Investments. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain outside the scope of this specific procedural order, the case reached a juncture where the Claimant required…
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural directions for Application Notice 52/2010 (15 July 2010)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments, filed under case number CFI 008/2010, represents a general commercial dispute brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for responsive pleadings (04 July 2010)
The dispute between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments involves the exchange of pleadings in the Court of First Instance. Following the filing of a Defence and a Counterclaim by the Defendant, the Claimant, Bisher Barazi, found himself unable to meet the original procedural deadline for submitting…
BISHER BARAZI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural compliance in default judgment applications (27 May 2010)
The dispute arose when Bisher Barazi filed a request for default judgment on 13 May 2010, asserting that the defendant, Dubai International Financial Centre Investments, had failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limits.
DENTON WILDE SAPTE & CO v ULTRA FUJI ELEVATOR INTERNATIONAL ELEVATORS & ESCALATORS LLC [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for unpaid legal fees (01 February 2009)
The dispute centered on a claim for unpaid professional fees brought by the international law firm Denton Wilde Sapte & Co against Ultra Fuji Elevator International Elevators & Escalators LLC.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Adjournment of committal proceedings and examination of third parties (08 June 2009)
This order addresses the procedural management of enforcement proceedings, specifically the adjournment of the examination of Sarah Decker and the continued suspension of a previously issued Committal Order.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Committal Order and electronic service protocols (14 May 2009)
Justice Sir Anthony Colman issues a suspended committal order against Sarah Decker, reinforcing the Court’s authority to compel compliance through personal attendance and modern service methods.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Compelling director disclosure for judgment enforcement (22 April 2009)
Following the judgment debt established in November 2008, the Claimant, Ithmar Capital, sought the assistance of the Court to uncover the financial means of the First Defendant, 8 Investment Inc.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Contempt of court and the lifting of a suspended committal order (11 March 2009)
The lawsuit originated as a commercial dispute involving Ithmar Capital and the defendants, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investments Group FZE. As the litigation progressed, the court issued a suspended Committal Order on 25 February 2009, intended to compel compliance with specific court directives.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Committal for contempt and enforcement of disclosure obligations (23 February 2009)
The DIFC Court of First Instance exercises its coercive powers to enforce judgment disclosure requirements against a recalcitrant officer, issuing a suspended committal order to compel compliance.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural conditions for withdrawal of legal representation (09 February 2009)
The litigation between Ithmar Capital and the defendants, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investments Group FZE, reached a procedural impasse in early 2009 regarding legal representation. JSA Law, acting for the 1st Defendant, filed an application on 25 January 2009 to cease acting for their client.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Enforcement of judgment through examination of means (25 January 2009)
This order mandates the attendance of a company representative for an examination of means and imposes a significant interim payment obligation to facilitate the enforcement of a prior judgment.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Enforcement of judgment and third-party examination (22 January 2009)
Ithmar Capital, having secured a judgment against 8 Investment Inc on 24 November 2008, encountered significant difficulties in identifying and locating assets sufficient to satisfy the debt.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Judicial intervention in case management and settlement timelines (20 January 2009)
The litigation in CFI 008/2007 involved a complex set of applications brought by the Claimant, Ithmar Capital, against the Respondents, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investment Group FZE. By January 2009, the parties had reached a juncture where multiple outstanding applications required judicial…