Latest articles
BOND INTERIOR DESIGN v TR88HOUSE RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Final account dispute and liquidated damages claim (28 February 2024)
The Technology and Construction Division clarifies the evidentiary burden required to sustain liquidated damages claims in the face of concurrent project delays.
BOND INTERIOR DESIGN v ELEVEIGHT RESTAURANT & ENTERTAINMENT CENTER [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Case management and procedural directions (01 September 2023)
A comprehensive procedural roadmap for a complex construction dispute, establishing strict timelines for disclosure, expert evidence, and trial preparation in the Technology and Construction Division.
BOND INTERIOR DESIGN v ELEVEIGHT RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural failure in service of process (16 June 2023)
This order clarifies the strict requirements for service of the Particulars of Claim, establishing that reliance on automated DIFC Courts Registry portal (CMS) notifications does not satisfy the obligation to serve a defendant directly.
ALUCOR v ROHR REIN CHEMIE MIDDLE EAST [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Jurisdiction and the limits of challenging onshore payment orders (07 October 2021)
The dispute arose from a subcontract agreement dated 10 June 2018 concerning the Al Taweelah Alumina Refinery Project. Alucor Limited initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) after Rohr Rein Chemie Middle…
ALUCOR v ROHR REIN CHEMIE MIDDLE EAST [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Transfer of construction dispute to TCD (20 May 2021)
The dispute between Alucor Limited and Rohr Rein Chemie Middle East centers on a construction-related claim initiated by the Claimant on 31 January 2021. As the litigation progressed, it became apparent that the nature of the underlying contractual obligations and the technical complexity of the…
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Balancing security for costs against the risk of stifling an appeal (15 June 2023)
The Claimants sought a significant extension of the deadline to provide security for costs, originally ordered on 5 May 2023, by arguing that they lacked the immediate liquidity to satisfy the AED 1,551,591.99 requirement.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural stay on payment obligations (30 May 2023)
The litigation, which has seen extensive procedural development under case number TCD 001/2020, involves a high-stakes commercial dispute between the Claimants—Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE—and the Respondents, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Stay of cost assessment pending appeal (18 May 2023)
This consent order formalizes the suspension of detailed cost assessment proceedings in the Technology and Construction Division, ensuring procedural alignment with the ongoing appellate review of the underlying judgment.
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — The high threshold for staying costs orders pending appeal (13 February 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the stringent evidentiary requirements for obtaining a stay of execution on costs orders, affirming that the "fruits of victory" principle prevails absent clear evidence of financial hardship.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Permission to appeal and the threshold for challenging factual findings (07 February 2023)
The underlying litigation, TCD 001/2020, concerns a high-stakes commercial dispute where the Claimants, Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE, sought damages against Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (08 November 2022)
The Technology and Construction Division grants a critical procedural extension, allowing the Appellants to formalize their appellate challenge in a complex commercial dispute involving cryptocurrency entities.
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — The high cost of misjudged cryptocurrency custody (26 October 2022)
The lawsuit centers on a failed cryptocurrency transaction involving the sale of 300 Bitcoin (BTC) by the Claimants, Gate Mena DMCC and Huobi Mena FZE, to a third party, Navarcon. The Claimants alleged that the First Defendant, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited, acted as an escrow agent and…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural adjustment to closing submission timelines (14 February 2022)
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes a two-day extension for closing submissions in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Pre-trial procedural adjustments and security for costs
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes the joinder of a second claimant and establishes a robust security for costs framework involving property undertakings and cash deposits.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Costs deferral and set-off protocols (16 November 2021)
Justice Sir Richard Field exercises judicial discretion to stay payment of successful costs applications pending trial, citing the Second Defendant’s unreasonable conduct regarding document production and evidence disposal.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline adjustment for witness evidence (25 October 2021)
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes a consent-based extension for the exchange of reply witness statements in the ongoing Huobi OTC DMCC litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural finality in cost settlements (19 October 2021)
The Registrar formally strikes out a prior cost assessment order following the successful private settlement of legal fees between the Claimant and the Second Defendant.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Finalizing cost assessments in TCD litigation
The litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and the defendants, Tabarak Investment Capital and Mr. Christian Thurner, represents a complex commercial dispute handled within the specialized Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts.
Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050: The Reach of Post-Award Interim Measures Under the 2025 Court Law
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC clarifies the scope of the DIFC’s supportive jurisdiction in the wake of a USD 600 million arbitral award. On January 22, 2026, H.E.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline adjustment for witness evidence (11 October 2021)
A consent order issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance formalizing a final-hour extension for the exchange of witness evidence in a high-stakes commercial dispute.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural recalibration of complex cryptocurrency litigation (04 October 2021)
A formal consent order adjusting critical evidentiary and expert witness timelines to accommodate the complex discovery requirements in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural refinement of disclosure obligations (12 September 2021)
A procedural order clarifying the scope of document production and the necessity of Statements of Truth for multi-party disclosure requests in the Technology and Construction Division.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural discipline in the Technology and Construction Division
The DIFC Court reinforces strict adherence to Case Management Orders, denying relief from sanctions for late document production filings while imposing financial penalties.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline management in the Technology and Construction Division (01 August 2021)
Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban grants a variation of time for compliance with existing case management obligations, reinforcing the court’s flexible approach to procedural deadlines in complex commercial litigation.