Latest articles
LONOD v LACINI [2021] DIFC SCT 225 — Employment contract validity and the doctrine of sham agreements (20 September 2021)
The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the enforceability of dual-contract arrangements, ruling that agreements executed solely for administrative visa purposes lack the requisite intent to create binding legal obligations for remuneration.
LINGAN v LAJNI [2021] DIFC SCT 222 — SCT adjudication of high-value employment entitlements (20 October 2021)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 12 April 2021. Initially, the Claimant sought to recover a significant sum for various unpaid entitlements.
LUNE v LUTEN [2020] DIFC SCT 089 — Debt recovery and enforcement of personal loan agreements (30 April 2020)
The dispute concerned the recovery of outstanding arrears on a personal loan and a credit card facility provided by the Claimant, a financial institution, to the Defendant. The parties had entered into a formal written agreement in June 2017, which governed the terms of a significant loan and a…
HALSTON v HAZEL [2017] DIFC SCT 086 — Enforceability of mistaken figures in employment compromise agreements (18 May 2017)
The dispute centers on a Compromise Agreement dated 6 December 2016, which governed the terms of the Claimant’s exit from the Defendant’s employment due to redundancy. The agreement included a provision for the payment of pension contributions to Pension Fund International (PFI), which was…
MINALIK v MORUL [2023] DIFC SCT 072 — Procedural correction of party identity in tenancy disputes (03 March 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal exercises its proactive case management powers to rectify misidentified corporate defendants in a tenancy dispute.
MAGENTA v MAHALIA [2022] DIFC SCT 072 — Breach of lease brokerage agreement (25 April 2022)
The dispute concerned the payment of a brokerage commission following the introduction of a tenant to the Defendant, Mahalia, by the Claimant, Magenta. The parties had entered into a lease brokerage agreement on 19 September 2021, which stipulated that the owner would pay a commission equivalent to…
Igraine v Ikale Asset Management [2018] DIFC SCT 069 — Strict liability for late wage payments (19 March 2018)
The Small Claims Tribunal confirms that Article 18(2) of the DIFC Employment Law imposes a mandatory penalty for late payments, irrespective of an employer's lack of bad faith or technical banking difficulties.
NAVEEN v NED [2024] DIFC SCT 068 — Employment claim for unpaid salary and benefits (11 July 2024)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s resignation from his position as Director at the Defendant company, Ned, following a failure by the employer to meet contractual financial obligations.
NAVEEN v NED [2024] DIFC SCT 068 — Employment jurisdiction and the inefficacy of exclusionary forum clauses (20 March 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that DIFC-registered entities cannot contractually oust the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts in employment disputes where the underlying contract is performed within the Centre.
LALA v LANKEN [2020] DIFC SCT 067 — jurisdictional bifurcation of multi-product financial claims (21 May 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of opt-in jurisdiction when a single application form covers distinct financial products, resulting in a partial dismissal of claims.
NATHAN v NAOMI [2024] SCT 065 — Unauthorized salary deductions and prohibited visa cost recoupment (23 April 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the mandatory nature of Article 57 of the DIFC Employment Law, ruling that employers cannot contractually shift visa costs to employees regardless of prior agreements.
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2020] DIFC CA 001 — Torrens Title and the enforceability of unregistered leases (15 October 2020)
The litigation arose from a failed 10-year lease agreement for Units R17A and R17B in Limestone House, DIFC. Vegie Bar LLC (VB) entered into a lease with the developer, Union Properties PJSC (UP), in 2011.
SAIF SAEED SULAIMAN MOHAMMAD AL MAZROUEI v BANKMED [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Appeal against immediate judgment for alleged forgery (02 January 2020)
The dispute arose from a default on a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement granted by the Respondent, Bankmed, to Fast Telecom General Trading LLC. Following the borrower's default, the bank sought to enforce personal guarantees against several defendants, including the Appellant, Saif Saeed Sulaiman…
LOVYA v LAY [2021] DIFC CA 006 — The limits of appellate intervention in interlocutory injunctions (19 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal served no functional purpose because the underlying dispute regarding the nature and presentation of the guarantee cheque was already subject to pending arbitration.
LEDGER v LEEOR [2022] DIFC CA 013 — Appeal against refusal of anti-suit injunction (26 October 2022)
The dispute arose from a construction contract for a residential project in Dubai, where Ledger (the developer) and Leeor (the contractor) found themselves in a significant financial disagreement.
LARA BASEM MUSA KHOURY v MASHREQ BANK [2022] DIFC CA 007 — procedural failure and jurisdictional limits in financial disputes (28 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal confirms that strict adherence to RDC service timelines and explicit 'opt-in' jurisdiction agreements are non-negotiable prerequisites for maintaining a claim within the DIFC Courts.
LALS HOLDINGS v EMIRATES INSURANCE COMPANY [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Insurance policy interpretation regarding pandemic-related business interruption (03 July 2024)
The dispute centered on the refusal of Emirates Insurance Company (EIC) to indemnify the LALS Group for business interruption losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. LALS, a retail conglomerate operating across the GCC, sought coverage under Property All Risk and Business Interruption…
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Costs order variation and the limits of RDC 4.2(1) (24 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of its power to extend time for compliance with orders and affirms the "costs follow the event" principle despite prior unreasoned court practices.
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the threshold for automatic stays under the Joint Judicial Committee Decree (08 April 2021)
The dispute originated from a sub-contract for landscaping and swimming pool installation at the Lisan project, initially involving the Defendant (Lakhan), a contractor (Labian), and the Claimant (Lamia).
LAHELA v LAMEEZ [2020] DIFC CA 007 — The limits of the Riyadh Convention in DIFC enforcement proceedings (09 May 2021)
The dispute centered on the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in a DIFC-seated arbitration. Lameez, the respondent, sought to enforce an award against Lahela, a company registered in Iraq, for the sum of USD 4,622,589.47 plus interest and costs.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Procedural dismissal for non-compliance (29 November 2020)
The dispute centered on an application filed by King and Wood Mallesons (Mena) LLP (the Appellant) on 18 August 2020, directed at the Respondent, Meydan Group LLC. While the underlying litigation involves a complex history between the parties and Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Limited, this specific…
Bankmed (SAL) v Ibrahim Saif Hormodi [2019] DIFC CA 006 — Dismissal of appeal against default judgment (11 February 2020)
The litigation arose from a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement dated 22 December 2015, involving Bankmed (SAL) as the lender and Fast Telecom General Trading LLC, along with its former shareholder Ibrahim Saif Hormodi, as parties providing security.
NAQID v NAJAM [2024] DIFC ARB 004 — Procedural management of witness cross-examination in consolidated enforcement proceedings (28 August 2024)
The dispute arises from an arbitration award issued in favor of the Claimant, Naqid, against the Defendant, Najam, following proceedings under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).
PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM v AL-MOJIL [2016] DIFC CA 003 — Confirmation of the Spiliada doctrine for forum non conveniens (23 August 2016)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the procedural nature of forum non conveniens in the DIFC, formally adopting the English Spiliada test to determine the appropriateness of the forum.