Latest articles
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (26 April 2015)
This order addresses the procedural management of appellate timelines within the DIFC Court of Appeal, specifically concerning the deadline for filing a Respondents’ Notice in a complex banking dispute.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Synchronizing appellate procedural timelines (23 March 2015)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai (the Claimants) and the two defendants, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd.
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2014] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions on employment gratuity and damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute centers on the appellant, Marwan Ahmad Lutfi, and his claims against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) regarding his entitlements following the termination of his employment.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002 — Court of Appeal clarifies cost awards in moot enforcement appeals (25 June 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for recovering costs in academic appeals, confirming that the "tolerably clear" test applies when supervening events render the underlying dispute moot.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002/2025 — Assessment of excessive appeal costs (09 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to slash a disproportionate costs claim following the mootness of an appeal.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Costs allocation following retrial order (22 August 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the methodology for apportioning costs in complex litigation where a retrial is ordered, favoring percentage-based allocations over issue-based assessments.
Fabiola v Faddey [2015] DIFC ARB 001: Balancing Arbitral Finality Against Parallel Annulment Challenges
How Sir John Chadwick’s intervention in the Fabiola dispute defined the DIFC’s cautious approach to enforcement during pending local court challenges.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC COURT OF APPEAL CA 002/2023 — Procedural management of cost submissions (25 July 2024)
The lawsuit involves a complex appellate matter between Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE against Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner. Following the Court of Appeal’s substantive judgment delivered on 13 June 2024, the court directed the parties to…
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CA 002 — procedural management of appellate filings (23 June 2022)
The litigation concerns an appeal brought by Expresso Telecom Group against Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla. Following an initial application for permission to appeal, the parties engaged in a series of filings, including a Second Permission Application submitted by the appellant on 14 January 2022 and a…
FIVE RIVER PROPERTIES v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CA 002 — Consent order dismissing appeal (14 December 2009)
The litigation involved a complex commercial disagreement between the Appellants, Five River Properties LLC and Renaissance Holdings and Developers FZE, and the Respondents, Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE.
NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION v TAALEEM [2012] DIFC CA 001/2011 — Rectification of clerical errors in Court of Appeal judgments (11 March 2012)
The dispute originated from an underlying appeal, CA 001/2011, involving National Bonds Corporation PJSC as the Appellant and Taaleem PJSC and Deyaar Development PJSC as the Respondents.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001/2010 — Procedural directions for re-amending pleadings (21 September 2010)
The litigation involves Rafed Abden Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifa against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited. The dispute centers on allegations of contract breach, misrepresentation, and negligence arising from the banking relationship.
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT LIMITED AND LINARUS FZE [2009] DIFC CA 001 — Consent order dismissing appeal (14 December 2009)
The litigation in CA 001/2009 involved a complex multi-party dispute centered on property investment interests within the DIFC jurisdiction. The proceedings pitted Amarjeet Singh Dhir and Waterfront Property Investment Limited, acting as the Appellants, against Linarus FZE, the Respondent.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Finality of litigation and the high threshold for reopening appeals (13 November 2014)
The underlying litigation concerned the termination of Raul Silva’s employment by United Investment Bank. A central point of contention at trial was whether an event held at the Copacabana Palace Hotel was a personal function or a corporate event.
TATIANA MIKHAILOVNA AKHMEDOVA v FARKHAD TEIMUR OGLY AKHMEDOV [2018] DIFC CA 003 — Jurisdiction over non-parties in foreign judgment enforcement (19 June 2018)
The litigation stems from the enforcement of a substantial English High Court Financial Remedy Order against Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov. Following divorce proceedings, the English court awarded the Claimant, Tatiana Mikhailovna Akhmedova, ancillary relief totaling GBP 453,576,152.
INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CA 002 — Enforceability of anti-set-off clauses in banking facilities (17 July 2018)
The DIFC Court of Appeal confirms that anti-set-off clauses are robustly enforceable under UAE law, precluding borrowers from utilizing unquantified cross-claims to defeat immediate judgment applications.
BARCLAYS BANK v HAMAD SUHAIL O AL KHAILI [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the limits of Article 5(A)(4) (10 February 2021)
The litigation arose from a banking relationship between Barclays Bank PLC and the Respondents, His Excellency Hamad Suhail. O. Al Khaili and Mr. Ibrahim Daoud Jaffal. The Respondents had initiated proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Courts concerning investment losses, despite the existence of a…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v HIS EXCELLENCY HAMAD SUHAIL. O. AL KHAILI [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Affirming exclusive jurisdiction over parallel proceedings (03 February 2021)
The dispute centered on the competing jurisdictional claims between the DIFC Courts and the Abu Dhabi Courts regarding banking facilities provided by Barclays Bank PLC to His Excellency Hamad Suhail. O. Al Khaili and Mr. Ibrahim Daoud Jaffal.
Bankmed v Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas [2019] DIFC CA 001 — The limits of appealing judicial reasoning (13 June 2019)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies that litigants cannot use the appellate process to challenge obiter dicta or judicial reasoning when the underlying order is in their favor.
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2020] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate procedural order (19 October 2020)
The dispute centers on an interlocutory application filed by the Appellant, Al Rihab Real Estate Company, on 14 October 2020, within the broader appellate proceedings against the Respondent, Emirates NBD Bank.
EMIRATES NBD BANK v AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 006 — Foreclosure and procedural fairness in the DIFC (05 April 2021)
The dispute centers on a foreclosure order granted to Emirates NBD Bank (ENBD) over a significant undeveloped parcel of land (Plot PA-05) within the DIFC. Al Rihab Real Estate Company, a member of the Al Jaber Group, defaulted on a facility originally granted in 2006, which was later restructured…
AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v HORIZON ENERGY [2023] DIFC CA 001 — The dismissal of an anti-suit injunction appeal (27 April 2023)
The underlying dispute originated from an application filed by Al Buhaira National Insurance Company (the Appellant) seeking an anti-suit injunction against Horizon Energy LLC (the Respondent).
TRAFIGURA PTE LTD v MR PRATEEK GUPTA [2025] DIFC CA 001 — The Court of Appeal confirms the DIFC’s power to grant interim relief in support of foreign proceedings (22 September 2025)
The litigation arises from a massive commodities trading dispute involving claims of deceit, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The claimants, Trafigura PTE Ltd and Trafigura India PTV Ltd, initiated proceedings against Mr. Prateek Gupta and Mrs.
SHAUN GREGORY MORGAN v THE REGISTRAR OF THE DIFC COURTS [2024] DIFC CA 004 AND CA 005 — Professional conduct and integrity sanctions (17 September 2024)
The Court of Appeal affirms the removal of a practitioner and his firm from the DIFC register following findings of fraud and reckless misrepresentation regarding criminal history.