Latest articles
GULF WINGS v A AND K TRADING [2022] DIFC CFI 004 — procedural enforcement of freezing order and disclosure (24 January 2022)
This order addresses the enforcement of a pre-existing freezing order, mandating immediate corporate disclosure and investigation into the unauthorized movement of an aircraft.
GULF WINGS v A AND K TRADING [2022] DIFC CFI 004 — Freezing order over aviation assets (14 January 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants a worldwide freezing order against A and K Trading Limited, specifically targeting an Embraer Legacy 600 aircraft to secure a US$ 1.3 million claim.
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Final orders on damages and costs following substantive judgment (23 August 2021)
The litigation centered on the repayment obligations of Aegis Resources DMCC concerning funds disbursed from its Trade Finance (TR) account held with the Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch).
Alucor v Rohr Rein Chemie [2021] DIFC TCD 001: The Limits of Clawing Back Dubai Court Judgments
Navigating the intersection of exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the finality of onshore payment orders
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Withdrawal of judicial order (16 August 2021)
The dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC and Union Bank of India (DIFC) Branch concerns complex commercial banking obligations, which have been subject to extensive procedural oversight since the commencement of the action in 2020.
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Finalizing the judgment implementation (26 July 2021)
The dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC and Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) concerns a complex banking matter that has been before the DIFC Court of First Instance since early 2020.
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2020] DIFC CFI 004 — Banking mandate and cyber fraud liability (11 July 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the allocation of risk in cyber fraud cases, affirming that a bank acts outside its mandate when it processes unauthorized payment instructions, regardless of the customer's internal security failures.
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Procedural adjustment of skeleton argument deadlines (16 May 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a consensual timeline adjustment for trial preparations in a complex banking dispute.
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Costs order following expert witness application (21 April 2021)
The underlying litigation involves a banking dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC (the Claimant) and Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) (the Defendant). The core of the procedural conflict centered on the Defendant’s desire to introduce expert testimony to support its defense, specifically regarding…
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2021] DIFC CFI 004 — Procedural rescheduling of trial (14 March 2021)
The litigation involves a commercial banking dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC and the DIFC branch of the Union Bank of India. While the specific underlying cause of action remains subject to ongoing proceedings, the matter has reached a stage where the court is actively managing the exchange of…
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2020] DIFC CFI 004 — Consent order for amendment of pleadings (22 November 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC, the Claimant, and the DIFC branch of the Union Bank of India, the Defendant. While the underlying substantive claims remain confidential, the procedural history indicates a complex banking matter requiring precise…
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2020] DIFC CFI 004 — Consent order for amendment of pleadings (26 October 2020)
The litigation between Aegis Resources DMCC and Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) concerns a commercial dispute brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance. As the proceedings progressed, the Claimant identified a necessity to refine the scope of its legal assertions and the factual narrative…
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2020] DIFC CFI 004 — procedural refinement of witness evidence timelines (21 September 2020)
The litigation in CFI 004/2020 involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Aegis Resources DMCC, and the Defendant, Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch). While the specific substantive allegations remain confidential within the broader case file, the matter has reached the stage of evidentiary…
AEGIS RESOURCES DMCC v UNION BANK OF INDIA [2020] DIFC CFI 004 — Order for document disclosure (08 July 2020)
The dispute between Aegis Resources DMCC and Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) centers on a contentious discovery phase where both parties sought extensive document production. The court’s intervention was required to resolve objections filed by both sides regarding the scope of disclosure.
CHRISTOS PAPADOPOULOS v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 004 — Consent order for party substitution (10 October 2017)
The litigation between Christos Papadopoulos and Standard Chartered Bank originated as a civil claim filed within the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the specific underlying causes of action—typically involving complex banking relationships, fiduciary duties, or contractual disputes in the…
CHRISTOS PAPADOPOULOS v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 004 — Consent order staying proceedings due to claimant's death (29 May 2017)
The litigation involved a civil claim brought by Christos Papadopoulos against Standard Chartered Bank. While the specific underlying cause of action remains private, the procedural posture of the case reached a critical juncture in early 2017 when the claimant passed away.
AMLAK FINANCE v DANIEL GEORGE WALLIS [2017] DIFC CFI 004 — Default judgment and property title transfer (07 November 2017)
The dispute arose from a breach of finance documents between Amlak Finance PJSC and Mr. Daniel George Wallis. The Claimant sought to recover losses stemming from the First Defendant’s failure to meet financial obligations, which necessitated the termination of the underlying finance agreements.
DESIGNLAB v BASE [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Order of Discontinuance (23 March 2015)
The litigation identified as CFI 004/2015 involved a claim brought by Designlab against Base LLC within the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the underlying merits of the dispute—such as the specific nature of the contractual breach or the quantum of damages sought—remain outside the public…
SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Final order of discontinuance (18 May 2015)
The litigation, initiated by Sonia Guetat against Mirabaud (Middle East) Ltd, involved a series of procedural hurdles that spanned over a year of active case management. The dispute, which originated in early 2014, saw multiple interlocutory orders regarding pleading deficiencies, wasted costs, and…
SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Discovery and production of documents (22 April 2015)
The dispute concerns the evidentiary phase of the proceedings in CFI 004/2014, where the Claimant, Ms. Sonia Guetat, sought to compel the production of various categories of documents held by the Defendant, Mirabaud (Middle East) Limited.
SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Case Management Order by consent (25 March 2015)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Sonia Guetat against Mirabaud (Middle East) Ltd. While the underlying substantive causes of action are not detailed in this specific order, the matter has been subject to extensive procedural scrutiny throughout 2014, including previous orders regarding…
SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Procedural determination on document production (02 March 2015)
The dispute concerns a procedural impasse regarding the exchange of evidence between the Claimant, Sonia Guetat, and the Defendant, Mirabaud (Middle East) Limited. Following a Case Management Conference held by H.E.
MS. SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Procedural consolidation and trial scheduling (18 January 2015)
The litigation concerns a dispute between Ms. Sonia Guetat and Mirabaud (Middle East) Limited, which has previously faced significant procedural hurdles, including issues regarding default judgment applications and wasted costs.
SONIA GUETAT v MIRABAUD [2015] DIFC CFI 004 — Default costs assessment following procedural non-compliance (11 January 2015)
The dispute arises from the underlying litigation in CFI 004/2014, where Sonia Guetat initiated proceedings against Mirabaud (Middle East) Limited. Following the progression of the case, the defendant, acting as the Receiving Party, sought to recover its legal costs.