Latest articles
SUHAIL RAZA BADAMI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 003 — Case Management Order (05 May 2013)
The litigation involves a real estate dispute brought by Suhail Raza Badami against Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited. While the specific underlying merits—such as the nature of the property investment or the alleged breach of contract—are not detailed in the procedural order, the case is…
SUHAIL RAZA BADAMI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural framework for real estate litigation (19 February 2013)
The lawsuit involves a civil claim brought by Suhail Raza Badami against Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in this procedural order, the matter is categorized within the real estate sector, suggesting a dispute arising from…
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2015] DIFC CFI 003 — Costs assessment following employment claim dismissal (03 November 2015)
The litigation arose from the termination of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant, which occurred on 4 December 2011. The Claimant, who held a senior management position, sought extensive legal remedies following his dismissal.
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 003 — Employment termination and the 'Employment of Relatives' policy (04 August 2013)
Marwan Ahmad Lutfi (ML) initiated proceedings against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) following his dismissal, which the Authority justified by citing its 'Employment of Relatives' (EOR) policy.
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural scheduling and document production timelines (28 August 2012)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Marwan Ahmad Lutfi against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA). While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain outside the scope of this specific procedural order, the case represents a significant dispute involving the…
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural extension and cost assessment (09 May 2012)
The dispute in CFI 003/2012 centered on the management of the litigation timeline, specifically the Defendant’s need for additional time to prepare and file its Defence. Marwan Ahmad Lutfi, acting as the Claimant, found himself in a procedural standoff with the Dubai International Financial Centre…
AMLAK SKY GARDENS v RIBAL YOUSSEF MAHDY [2011] DIFC CFI 003 — Correction of clerical errors in default judgment (15 December 2011)
The dispute centers on a real estate recovery action initiated by Amlak Sky Gardens L.L.C against Ribal Youssef Mahdy. Following the issuance of a default judgment on 17 July 2011, the Claimant identified inaccuracies within the record that hindered the enforcement of the court’s decision.
PETER EVANS & ORS v UNION PROPERTIES [2010] DIFC CFI 003 — Disclosure of Index Tower contractual documentation (05 July 2010)
The dispute centers on a group of investors, Peter Evans & Ors, who initiated proceedings against Union Properties PJSC concerning their purchase of units in The Index Tower. The claimants sought extensive disclosure of documentation to clarify the contractual timeline and the regulatory approval…
PETER EVANS & ORS v UNION PROPERTIES [2010] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural adjournment of disclosure application (24 March 2010)
The litigation in CFI 003/2010 centers on a pre-trial procedural impasse regarding the production of evidence. The Claimants, Peter Evans & Ors, initiated an application on 25 January 2010 seeking a court order for the disclosure of documents held by the Defendant, Union Properties.
PETER EVANS & ORS v UNION PROPERTIES [2010] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural compliance regarding statements of truth (11 February 2010)
The litigation involves a Part 8 claim initiated by Peter Evans and others against Union Properties PJSC. Upon filing the claim form on 25 January 2010, the claimants recognized that the procedural rules governing the verification of court documents required specific authorization if a single…
RASMALA INVESTMENTS v SAURABH DHALL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Appellate reversal of Small Claims Tribunal judgment (02 March 2009)
The litigation originated from a claim brought by Saurabh Dhall against Rasmala Investments Limited, which was initially adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). While the specific underlying commercial grievance—whether contractual, employment-related, or tortious—remained secondary to…
SAURABH DHALL v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Dismissal of procedural application (18 February 2009)
The litigation between Saurabh Dhall and Rasmala Investments Limited originated as a dispute brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the specific underlying merits of the primary claim are not detailed in the Order, the immediate matter before the court on 18 February 2009 concerned…
SAURABH DHALL v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Stay of execution pending appeal (09 February 2009)
The litigation between Saurabh Dhall and Rasmala Investments Limited centers on a procedural impasse following an initial order issued by the Court of First Instance. The claimant, Saurabh Dhall, sought to enforce a judgment or order against the defendant, Rasmala Investments Limited.
Dr. Urs Rechsteiner v Diwan Capital [2010] DIFC CFI 003 — Consent order concluding litigation (14 March 2010)
The litigation initiated by Dr. Urs Rechsteiner against Diwan Capital Limited under claim number CFI 003/2008 represented a formal legal challenge within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
DR. URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural stay and costs management (08 October 2009)
The litigation between Dr. Urs Rechsteiner and Diwan Capital Limited reached a juncture where the primary focus shifted from the merits of the underlying claim to the mechanics of cost recovery.
DR. URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Interim order for security for costs (26 August 2009)
In the proceedings under CFI 003/2008, the Defendant, Diwan Capital, sought an order for security for costs following an application filed on 20 July 2009. The dispute, which originated in the Court of First Instance, reached a critical procedural juncture when the court evaluated the financial…
URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2008] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural adjournment by consent (26 October 2008)
This consent order formalizes a temporary stay of proceedings in the Court of First Instance, providing the parties a window for resolution before the resumption of litigation.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural stay by consent (30 April 2024)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI 002/2024 involves a commercial dispute between BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, a prominent financial services firm, and 3IQ Corporation.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension for ADR (18 April 2024)
The litigation involves BHM Capital Financial Services PSC as the Claimant and 3iQ Corporation as the Defendant. While the specific underlying commercial dispute remains confidential, the matter is currently before the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 002/2024.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension by consent (01 April 2024)
The litigation under case number CFI 002/2024 involves a commercial dispute between BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, acting as the Claimant, and 3IQ Corporation, the Defendant. While the underlying substantive claims remain to be fully ventilated in subsequent filings, the current procedural…
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension by consent (07 March 2024)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI 002/2024 involves BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, acting as the Claimant, and 3IQ Corporation, named as the Defendant. While the substantive merits of the claim remain pending, the matter has reached the stage of pleadings, specifically the…
PARKING DISTRICT SOLUTIONS v THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY [2022] DIFC CFI 002 — Strict enforcement of anti-assignment clauses and contractual termination rights (31 January 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that contractual rights cannot be unilaterally transferred via novation without the counterparty's consent, and that "without cause" termination clauses remain absolute.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Order of Discontinuance (05 August 2021)
The litigation, registered under case number CFI 002/2020, involved a commercial dispute between Emirates Retakaful Limited (the Claimant) and Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC (the Defendant).
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Consent order staying jurisdictional challenge (31 May 2021)
The litigation concerns a commercial dispute between Emirates Retakaful Limited and Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC. The matter reached the DIFC Court of First Instance under Claim No.