Latest articles
Sandra Holding v Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Costs allocation following the discharge of worldwide freezing orders (02 November 2023)
The core of this dispute concerns the appropriate allocation of costs following the successful appeal by Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi against worldwide freezing orders originally granted by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in November 2021.
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — The limits of DIFC Court jurisdiction over worldwide freezing orders (06 September 2023)
The dispute originated from a long-standing family conflict between Nuri Musaed Al Saleh and his brother, Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, concerning the management and shareholding of Universal Enterprises Limited (UEL), a Cayman Islands entity.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 008 — Clarifying the scope of compensation for breaches of the Financial Services Prohibition (22 March 2018)
The lawsuit originated from the Respondents' investment in unsuitable financial products, specifically "yield enhanced" notes, which were facilitated by Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin Limited.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 008 — Appellate review of quantum and statutory compensation under the Regulatory Law (29 January 2017)
The dispute arose from the Respondents' investment in leveraged yield-enhanced notes, which the Court previously determined were sold in breach of the Financial Services Prohibition under Article 41 of the DIFC Regulatory Law.
Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Regulatory liability for structured financial product losses (03 March 2016)
The dispute arose from the purchase of structured financial products, known as "the Notes," by three wealthy Kuwaiti nationals—Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—between 2007 and 2008.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2021] DIFC CA 012 — Appellate confirmation of time-bar dismissal (09 February 2023)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms the dismissal of professional negligence claims against auditors, solidifying the application of foreign limitation periods in complex cross-border litigation.
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Appellate clarification on joinder and jurisdictional gateways (13 March 2019)
The Court of Appeal resolves a critical procedural impasse, confirming that the DIFC Rules of Court function as "DIFC Regulations" to facilitate the joinder of parties under RDC 20.7(2) even where independent jurisdictional gateways are absent.
NADIL v NAMEER [2025] DIFC CA 001 — Court of Appeal affirms interim freezing order jurisdiction (13 June 2025)
The dispute arises from allegations of deceit, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and unjust enrichment brought by the Appellants, Nadil and Noshaba, against the Respondents, Nameer and Naseema.
NADIL v NAMEER [2025] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate intervention on freezing injunctions and jurisdictional uncertainty (26 April 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal sets aside a Court of First Instance order dismissing a freezing injunction application, establishing a bifurcated procedural path to resolve jurisdictional challenges while maintaining the privacy of sensitive proceedings.
Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 003 — jurisdictional retrospectivity and the application of Law No. 16 of 2011 (05 January 2012)
The lawsuit centers on a complex financial dispute involving three claimants—Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and two corporate respondents: Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited (the DIFC-based subsidiary) and Bank…
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying regulatory liability and pleading standards (26 January 2011)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the independence of Article 94 Regulatory Law claims and establishes the legitimacy of cross-referenced pleading techniques in complex financial litigation.
Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the scope of Article 94 Regulatory Law and security for costs (23 January 2011)
The dispute centers on a claim for nearly US$75 million brought by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate review of pleading standards and regulatory liability (09 November 2010)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for pleading investment-related claims and confirms that Article 94 of the Regulatory Law provides a direct, independent cause of action for private litigants.
MELODY v MELANCE [2020] DIFC CA 010 — Appeal against costs assessment following interim injunction (11 May 2021)
The litigation arose from a shareholder dispute involving the ownership of 75 million new shares issued by MYRA. Melance claimed a beneficial interest in 39.5% of these shares (the "Disputed Shares"), while the Appellants, Melody and Molly (collectively "MELODY"), maintained that Melance’s option…
LAAMIH v LATEEF [2022] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal struck out for non-appearance (09 May 2022)
The lawsuit originated from an underlying order issued by Justice Wayne Martin on 13 December 2021. Following this order, the Appellants, Laamih, Labib, and Laeek, successfully sought permission to appeal, which was granted by Justice Wayne Martin on 3 February 2022.
Laabika v Ladu Capital Investments [2021] DIFC CA 008 — Jurisdiction of 'Courts of Dubai' clauses (07 September 2021)
The dispute arose from a loan agreement executed on 30 September 2016, wherein the Appellants, Laabika and Labhdi, provided a principal sum of €2,000,000 to the First Respondent, Ladu Capital Investments.
KOREK TELECOM COMPANY v IRAQ TELECOM [2024] DIFC CA 016 — The limits of the act of state doctrine in corruption-related arbitrations (16 June 2025)
The dispute centered on allegations of unlawful means conspiracy and breach of contract, specifically concerning the procurement of a decision from the Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (CMC).
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v ROHAN & BEYDOUN [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Appellate refusal to permit new force majeure pleadings (16 October 2014)
The dispute centered on the rights of purchasers of residential units in "The Building by Daman" to terminate their Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) due to the developer’s failure to complete construction by the contractually stipulated Anticipated Completion Date (ACD).
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v ROHAN [2013] DIFC CA 005 — Strict adherence to contractual notice requirements for real estate completion dates (16 March 2014)
The litigation centered on the failure of Daman Real Estate Capital Partners to complete residential units in "The Building by Daman" by the contractually stipulated Anticipated Completion Date (ACD).
KENNETH DAVID ROHAN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CA 005/006 — Strict compliance with contractual notice provisions in real estate SPAs (11 February 2014)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that unilateral extensions of an Anticipated Completion Date (ACD) in real estate development agreements require precise, unequivocal adherence to contractual notice requirements, invalidating vague correspondence from developers.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC CA 002 — Appellate review of digital asset liability and bailment (13 June 2024)
The litigation centers on a high-stakes dispute involving the loss of 300 Bitcoin (BTC) following a series of transactions where Tabarak Investment Capital acted as an intermediary. The Appellants, Gate MENA DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi MENA FZE, sought to recover the value of these…
FIRST ABU DHABI BANK v LARMAG HOLDING [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Jurisdictional reach over licensed financial institutions (23 March 2020)
The litigation arose from a claim by Larmag Holding B.V. (the Respondent) concerning the alleged fraudulent transfer of bonds. Larmag contended that it was induced by fraud, purportedly committed by a Mr. Aljabri and an entity known as Elite Holding Group, to sell certain Reditum SA Bonds.
EMIRATES NBD BANK v ADVANCED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT [2022] DIFC CA 012 — Appeal dismissed regarding AED 1.9 billion syndicated facility default (01 May 2023)
The dispute centers on a series of syndicated facility agreements entered into on 27 December 2018, involving a consortium of nine prominent financial institutions, including Emirates NBD Bank, HSBC Bank Middle East, and Dubai Islamic Bank.
Lachesis v Lacrosse [2021] DIFC ARB 005: The High Bar for Challenging Arbitral Awards on Public Policy Grounds
How Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi closed the door on merit-based appeals disguised as public policy challenges. On March 22, 2021, H.E.