Latest articles
TVM Capital Healthcare Partners v Ali Akbar Hashemi [2014] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate review of confidentiality breaches and negotiating damages (27 January 2015)
The dispute centered on the actions of Mr. Ali Akbar Hashemi, who was accused by TVM Capital Healthcare Partners of breaching a confidentiality agreement and violating the duty of confidence under Article 37 of DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005.
TR88house Restaurant And Entertainment Centre v Bond Interior Design [2024] DIFC CA 006 — Appeal costs and double-counting rectification (18 September 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the application of RDC Part 32 cost consequences in the context of a consent-based reduction of a judgment sum due to double-counting errors.
SBM Bank v Renish Petrochem [2022] DIFC CA 011 — Fraudulent trade finance and the standard of proof (25 May 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that fraudulent intent in complex trade finance structures can be inferred from the immediate dissipation of funds, reinforcing the civil standard of proof for deceit.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — wrongful dismissal and director fiduciary duties (06 November 2014)
The dispute centers on the summary dismissal of Raul Silva, the former CEO of United Investment Bank, on 25 January 2012. The bank alleged that Silva engaged in unauthorized expenditure and failed to adhere to board directives regarding the terms of employment contracts for senior staff.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Wrongful dismissal and fiduciary duty dispute (21 August 2014)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the evidentiary threshold for summary dismissal in the DIFC, overturning a lower court ruling that failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding alleged gross misconduct.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Abuse of process and the finality of litigation (28 January 2019)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the strict application of the rule against abuse of process, ruling that claimants cannot re-litigate matters that should have been brought in earlier proceedings.
RADA TRADING v WEALTH BRIDGE TRADING [2021] DIFC CA 007 — Appellate reversal on the sufficiency of pleadings regarding contract variation (07 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of "Entire Agreement" clauses and the sufficiency of pleadings regarding contractual variations in the context of energy sector settlement agreements.
PETER MATTHEW JAMES GRAY v GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER [2016] DIFC CA 012 — Court of Appeal confirms mandatory stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration (12 March 2017)
The litigation arose from the termination of Peter Matthew James Gray’s employment with the international law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher. Mr. Gray initiated proceedings seeking various declarations, indemnities, and monetary compensation, alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed.
PANTHER REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT v MODERN EXECUTIVE SYSTEMS CONTRACTING [2022] DIFC CA 016 — FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1 and the condition precedent debate (12 May 2023)
The litigation centers on a construction contract for the "East 40 Building" in Al Furjan, Dubai, entered into on 11 July 2017. Panther Real Estate Development, the Employer, contracted with Modern Executive Systems Contracting (MESC) for the construction of a residential tower for a contract price…
OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY v GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS [2021] DIFC CA 009 — Appellate review of procedural discretion in late-stage amendments (28 December 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for allowing late amendments to pleadings, emphasizing that procedural delays must be weighed against the interests of justice rather than reflexively attributed to tactical maneuvering.
NIHAN v NICHOLAS [2024] DIFC CA 012 — Clarifying the distinction between arbitrability and public policy (14 November 2024)
The litigation arose from a breach of a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) and a Memorandum of Association (MoA) concerning a water desalination project. The Claimant, Nihan, a Spanish entity, sought to enforce a final arbitral award against the Defendants, Nicholas and Niaz, following an ICC-seated…
NEAL v NADIR [2024] DIFC CA 001 — Enforcement of foreign-seated interim arbitral awards (22 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal confirms that interim measures issued as an arbitral award are enforceable within the DIFC, regardless of the seat of arbitration, reinforcing the jurisdiction's pro-enforcement stance.
NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION v TAALEEM PJSC [2011] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the scope of 'Courts of Dubai' jurisdiction clauses (11 May 2011)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the phrase 'courts of Dubai, UAE' does not automatically exclude the DIFC Courts, emphasizing that the surrounding contractual context and the nature of the transaction are paramount in determining the parties' intended forum.
Nael v Niamh Bank [2024] DIFC CA 015 — Enforcement of arbitral awards and the public policy exception (09 January 2025)
The dispute arose from a construction project where Nael (the Employer) sought to enforce an arbitral award against Niamh Bank (the Bank) following the insolvency of the project's contractor.
NS Investments v Ajay Sethi [2021] DIFC CA 010 — Setting aside default judgment for procedural non-compliance (18 November 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the mandatory nature of RDC filing requirements, ruling that a default judgment cannot stand when a defendant has effectively communicated a defense, even if formal acknowledgment of service was omitted.
MR. SALEM DWELA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 009 — Limitation periods for misrepresentation in real estate disputes (03 March 2021)
The dispute centers on a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) executed on 18 May 2010 between the appellant, Mr. Salem Dwela, and the respondent, Damac Park Towers Company. Mr. Dwela agreed to purchase a property unit for a total base price of AED 3,844,048, which was fully paid by July 2011.
MEYDAN GROUP v BANYAN TREE CORPORATE [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Affirming DIFC jurisdiction over domestic arbitration awards (03 November 2014)
The dispute originated from a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) dated 15 August 2007, concerning a luxury hotel property in Dubai. Banyan Tree Corporate, a Singaporean entity, sought to enforce a DIAC arbitration award against Meydan Group, a UAE-based real estate developer, following the wrongful…
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 and CA 004 — Court of Appeal dismisses multi-million Euro fraud claim following failed Cypriot litigation (25 August 2022)
The litigation involved a claim by Massun against various defendants, seeking to recover assets—specifically a yacht and property in Spain—allegedly misappropriated through fraud and conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 004 — Dismissal of claims and setting aside of freezing orders following failure of underlying Cypriot proceedings (22 July 2022)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to recover assets, specifically a yacht and a Spanish property valued at over EUR 30 million, which she alleged were the subject of a fraudulent conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate intervention on pleading amendments and immediate judgment (22 July 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal’s decision in Massun v Mousi clarifies the strict threshold for amending pleadings and the court's willingness to grant immediate judgment when a claimant fails to substantiate a viable cause of action.
MASHREQ AL ISLAMI FINANCE COMPANY v MR BABAR REHMAN [2019] DIFC CA 002 — Appellate review of indemnity costs and payment reconciliation (02 October 2019)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of recoverable costs in Islamic finance litigation, ruling that pre-litigation expenses cannot be bundled into an indemnity costs assessment.
MARWAN LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2013] DIFC CA 003 — Employment termination, discrimination, and pension entitlement (26 November 2014)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the boundaries of marital status discrimination and confirms the absence of unfair dismissal claims under the unamended DIFC Employment Law.
MAG FINANCIAL SERVICES v THERON ENTERTAINMENT [2017] DIFC CA 006 — Tenancy termination and damages for lost profits (28 January 2018)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the interpretation of termination clauses in contracts of adhesion and sets a high evidentiary bar for claims of lost profits in commercial tenancy disputes.
LURAL v LISTRAN [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Exclusive jurisdiction and the limits of Article 5(A)(4) (10 February 2021)
The dispute centered on whether a judgment obtained in an Abu Dhabi court, in direct violation of an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring the DIFC, could constitute a "final judgment" sufficient to strip the DIFC Courts of jurisdiction under Article 5(A)(4) of the Judicial Authority Law (JAL).