Latest articles
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2017] DIFC CA 013 — Procedural stay pending clarification of judicial capacity (26 October 2017)
The DIFC Court of Appeal grants a stay of execution on an order of uncertain judicial provenance, prioritizing cost-efficiency and procedural clarity over immediate compliance.
Vegie Bar v Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties [2017] DIFC CA 013 — strict document production and debarment sanctions (20 September 2017)
The dispute centers on a complex real estate matter involving the registration and subsequent withdrawal of a lease for Vegie Bar LLC within the Limestone House development in the DIFC.
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2017] DIFC CA 013 — Court of Appeal orders extensive non-party disclosure (23 March 2017)
The lawsuit centers on a complex commercial dispute involving Vegie Bar LLC and Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties (ENBD Properties) concerning property units in Limestone House and Index Tower.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2023] DIFC CA 012/2021 — Consent order for detailed assessment extension (08 June 2023)
The Court of Appeal formalizes a procedural extension for cost recovery following the conclusion of substantive appellate litigation between Nest Investments and Deloitte & Touche.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2023] DIFC CA 012 — Consent order regarding detailed assessment timelines (08 May 2023)
The dispute concerns the recovery of legal costs following the Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered on 9 February 2023. Following the resolution of the underlying appellate issues, the parties were required to initiate the detailed assessment process to quantify the costs payable.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2022] DIFC CA 012 — Validity of Respondents' Notice in complex litigation (26 May 2022)
The litigation arises from a long-standing professional negligence dispute involving a substantial group of claimants, including various investment and insurance entities, against the audit firm Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl.
PETER MATTHEW JAMES GRAY v GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER [2018] DIFC CA 012 — Consent order for costs settlement (24 July 2018)
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal costs incurred by Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP during the proceedings of CFI-012-2016 and the subsequent appeal, CA-012-2016. Following the conclusion of the underlying litigation, the parties reached a negotiated settlement to avoid further protracted…
PETER MATTHEW JAMES GRAY v GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER [2017] DIFC CA 012 — Costs liability following unsuccessful challenge to arbitration agreement (27 April 2017)
The lawsuit originated from a dispute regarding the enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement between Peter Matthew James Gray and the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (GDC). After initially agreeing to the existence of an arbitration clause while the matter was before the Small Claims Tribunal…
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2022] DIFC CA 011 — Appellate court rejects attempt to impose additional security conditions on appeal (16 December 2022)
The litigation arises from a substantial financial claim involving SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd and the respondents, Renish Petrochem FZE and Mr. Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta. Following earlier proceedings, the respondents sought to leverage the appellate process to secure immediate financial…
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2023] DIFC CA 011 — Consent order for costs offset (27 April 2023)
The dispute centered on the reconciliation of two distinct costs liabilities arising from the ongoing appellate proceedings in CA 011/2022. The primary liability originated from a previous Consent Order dated 9 August 2022, under which the Second Appellant, Mr.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2023] DIFC CA 011 — Procedural stay pending security for costs (06 February 2023)
The dispute centers on the synchronization of procedural deadlines in the Court of Appeal following an order for security for costs. SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd, as the Respondent, sought an extension of time to file its Respondent’s Notice and Skeleton Argument.
SBM Bank v Renish Petrochem [2022] DIFC CA 011 — Registrar determines quantum of security for costs (22 December 2022)
The dispute arose from an appeal following a judgment where the Respondent, SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd, had successfully alleged fraudulent payment representations against the Appellants, Renish Petrochem FZE and Mr. Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2022] DIFC CA 011 — procedural streamlining of appellate evidence (14 October 2022)
The litigation involves SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd as the Respondent/Claimant and Renish Petrochem FZE along with Mr. Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta as the Appellants/Defendants. The matter reached the Court of Appeal under case number CA 011/2022.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Procedural management of appellate filings (01 November 2021)
The dispute concerns the administrative management of the appellate process in CA 011/2021. Following a direction from the Registry on 1 October 2021, the Respondent, Expresso Telecom Group, was initially tasked with lodging all documents for the upcoming 16 November 2021 hearing, including…
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent order for re-amendment of pleadings (02 May 2019)
The litigation involves a substantial multi-party action brought by Nest Investment Holding Lebanon S.A.L. and ten co-claimants, including various corporate entities and individual investors such as Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl and His Excellency Sheikh Nasser Bin Ali Bin Saud Al Thani.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent order regarding costs of joinder application (28 April 2019)
The litigation involved a complex procedural battle concerning the Claimants' attempt to join Mr. El Fadl to the ongoing proceedings against Deloitte & Touche (M.E.). The Claimants, a group of eleven entities and individuals including Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman…
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent Order regarding costs extension (09 April 2019)
The Court of Appeal formalizes a procedural extension for cost resolution following the substantive judgment in the long-running dispute between Nest Investment Holding and Deloitte & Touche.
ELSECO LIMITED v MR PIERRE-ERIC DANIEL BERNARD LYS [2016] DIFC CA 011 — Leave to appeal granted on public importance grounds (09 October 2016)
The underlying dispute involves Elseco Limited and Mr. Pierre-Eric Daniel Bernard Lys, stemming from a judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani on 14 July 2016. Following that decision, Mr.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPORTS ELITE [2022] DIFC CA 010 — Settlement and stay of proceedings (11 October 2022)
The litigation involved a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Dar Al Mal Limited, and the Defendant, originally identified as Barcelona Spain Elite S.L.- BSE. The conflict spanned two distinct levels of the DIFC judicial system, specifically the Court of First Instance (CFI-014-2022) and the…
FIRST ABU DHABI BANK v LARMAG HOLDING [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Dismissal of appeal against jurisdictional ruling (30 September 2019)
The lawsuit centers on a jurisdictional challenge brought by First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC and FAB Securities LLC (the Appellants) against Larmag Holding B.V. (the Respondent). The dispute originated from a ruling by Justice Sir Richard Field on 4 August 2019, which determined that the DIFC Courts…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order for extension of time regarding costs assessment (05 May 2019)
This Court of Appeal order formalizes a procedural extension for cost recovery mechanisms following the conclusion of long-standing banking litigation.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order regarding cost payment deadlines (02 April 2019)
The dispute stems from the long-running litigation between Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi and others against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin Limited. Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment dated 28 January 2019, the Claimants were ordered to satisfy the costs…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order regarding costs assessment timelines (12 September 2019)
This order formalizes a procedural extension for the payment of costs and the filing of assessment requests in the long-running litigation between the Al Khorafi claimants and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI [2020] DIFC CA 010 — Discontinuance following confidential settlement (22 April 2020)
The litigation involved Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd as Appellants against Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai as Respondents.