Latest articles
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Retrospective application of limitation periods under the 2019 Employment Law (20 December 2021)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Appellant’s employment with Expresso Telecom Group, a company incorporated within the DIFC, following the conclusion of three consecutive fixed-term contracts that ended on 31 July 2014.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal regarding the cessation of legal representation (20 March 2017)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of the 'slip rule' and the duration of solicitor authority following unsuccessful jurisdictional challenges.
WCT Berhad v Meydan Group [[2016] DIFC ARB 003](https://legal-wires.com/uae-difc/gauge-investments-v-ganelle-capital-2016-difc-arb-003-the-arbitrability-of-regulatory-breaches-in-the-difc/): The Limits of Judicial Recusal in High-Stakes Arbitration
How Justice Sir David Steel dismantled a tactical recusal attempt in the long-running Meydan litigation saga
JOHN VITALO v ATLAS MARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES [2019] DIFC CA 012 — Appellate review of discretionary remuneration and holiday pay claims (23 March 2020)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of employer discretion regarding remuneration adjustments and the interpretation of contractual indexation clauses in high-level executive employment agreements.
Ithmar Capital v 8 Investment [2008] DIFC CA 001 — The duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte freezing injunctions (17 March 2008)
The Court of Appeal’s inaugural judgment clarifies the strict requirements for ex parte freezing injunctions in the DIFC, emphasizing that material non-disclosure warrants the discharge of existing orders even if a fresh injunction is subsequently granted.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CA 004 — The inapplicability of forum non conveniens between UAE courts (19 November 2015)
The dispute centers on two loan agreements and a Share Pledge Agreement executed between Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL). Following alleged defaults, SCB initiated proceedings in the DIFC Courts to recover outstanding sums and enforce the security.
IGPL General Trading v Hortin Holdings [2021] DIFC CA 013 and DIFC CA 015 — Dismissal of appeal regarding corporate authority and the Duomatic principle (23 March 2022)
The dispute centered on the Appellant’s attempt to enforce alleged tenancy agreements dated 16 January 2013 and 4 March 2013, which purportedly granted the Appellant rights over London properties owned by the Respondents.
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL [2019] DIFC CA 014 — Appellate review of damages for breach of irrevocable undertaking (06 July 2020)
The litigation arose from a breakdown in a supply-chain financing arrangement between IDBI Bank and Amira C Foods International DMCC. Amira, a major supplier of Indian basmati rice, relied on credit facilities provided by the Bank to procure commodities from its primary supplier, A K Global…
HORIZON ENERGY v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2022] DIFC CA 015 — Affirming DIFC jurisdiction over insurance disputes (04 May 2023)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the DIFC Courts are a constituent part of the UAE judicial system, rejecting attempts to use federal insurance administrative procedures to oust DIFC jurisdiction.
HORIZON ENERGY v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2023] DIFC CA 015 — Court of Appeal affirms DIFC jurisdiction over insurance negative declarations (19 April 2023)
The litigation arose from a marine insurance dispute involving a tanker, the "BETA," which disappeared while allegedly in the service of the Iranian Navy. Horizon Energy, the insured, sought compensation for the loss of the vessel, which was covered under a Marine Hull and Machinery Policy and a…
HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 003 — The Court of Appeal clarifies the high threshold for summary disposal in complex contractual disputes (10 January 2021)
The litigation centers on a high-stakes dispute arising from a 2004 agreement intended to develop land within the Dubai International Financial Centre. Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited initiated proceedings against the DIFC Authority and its subsidiary, DIFC Investments LLC, seeking damages for…
HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate reversal of immediate judgment (29 September 2020)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute involving Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the two Respondents: the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Reopening of final appeal on costs (13 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal reaffirms the high threshold for reopening final judgments, ruling that a party’s failure to proactively address costs during proceedings does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" under RDC 44.154.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Procedural discretion and the misuse of Part 8 proceedings (21 February 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of judicial discretion when denying procedural transfers, emphasizing that a focus on "lateness" cannot override the necessity of determining a claim on its merits.
Hana Al Herz v The Dubai International Financial Centre Authority [2013] DIFC CA 004 — Employment law and the limits of judicial innovation (27 November 2014)
The dispute originated from the termination of Hana Al Herz (HAH) by the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA). HAH, who served as a Director of Insurance and Re-Insurance, sought reinstatement, damages for breach of contract, and compensation for alleged discrimination based on…
GULF WINGS v A AND K TRADING [2022] DIFC CA 014 — Restoring contempt findings after procedural irregularities (12 December 2022)
The litigation originated from a debt recovery claim brought by Gulf Wings FZE against A And K Trading Limited concerning an Aircraft Management Agreement for an Embraer EMB-135-BJ Legacy 600.
GRAND VALLEY GENERAL TRADING v GGICO SUNTECK [2019] DIFC CA 007 — Default judgment set aside for improper service (03 October 2019)
The Court of Appeal confirms that strict adherence to service requirements under the Rules of the DIFC Courts is a prerequisite for the validity of a default judgment, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
GINETTE v GEARY MIDDLE EAST [2016] DIFC CA-005 — Appeal regarding arbitral authority and interest rates (09 October 2016)
The dispute originated from a settlement agreement entered into on 21 May 2009 between Ginette PJSC and the respondents, Geary Middle East FZE and Geary Limited. Following a failure to make final payments under this agreement, the respondents initiated arbitration proceedings in 2014.
GCC International v Capital Investment International [2012] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying non-party disclosure costs (24 September 2012)
The DIFC Court of Appeal establishes that non-parties compelled to produce documents under RDC 38.66 are entitled to recover their reasonable legal costs from the applicant, correcting a misapplication of the general "loser pays" rule.
FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS v ASIF HAKIM ADIL [2016] DIFC CA 006 — Strict application of Article 18 employment penalties (20 March 2017)
The litigation originated from an employment contract dispute between the Appellant, Frontline Development Partners Limited, and the Respondent, Asif Hakim Adil, who served as the company’s Managing Director.
FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS v ASIF HAKIM ADIL [2015] DIFC CA 005 — Appellate review of security for costs applications (15 September 2015)
The litigation originated from an employment termination claim brought by Asif Hakim Adil against his former employer, Frontline Development Partners Limited. The claimant sought damages arising from the cessation of his employment, initiating proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance under…
FIDEL v FELECIA AND FARAZ [2015] DIFC CA 002 — The International Approach to non-DIFC UAE law (23 November 2015)
The Court of Appeal clarifies that the DIFC Courts are not bound by the English common law rule requiring foreign law to be proven as a fact through expert evidence, establishing the "International Approach" for non-DIFC UAE law.
Expresso Telecom Group v Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla [2022] DIFC CA 002 — Clarifying the scope of Article 19 penalty accrual (02 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that an employer’s unilateral counterclaim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty does not suspend the statutory penalty clock for late payment of terminal benefits under the DIFC Employment Law.
ELSECO LIMITED v PIERRE-ERIC DANIEL BERNARD LYS [2016] DIFC CA 011 — Employment termination and statutory penalty interpretation (05 July 2017)
The dispute originated from the termination of Mr Pierre-Eric Daniel Bernard Lys by his employer, Elseco Limited. The central issue was whether the employer was justified in terminating the employment for cause under Article 59A of the DIFC Employment Law. The trial judge, H.E.