Latest articles
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS v OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 051 — Correction of procedural slips in document production (06 September 2018)
Justice Sir Richard Field exercises the Court’s inherent power to rectify clerical errors in a document production order, clarifying the scope of de novo review.
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS v OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 051 — Document production and disclosure review (07 June 2018)
The lawsuit concerns a commercial dispute between Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC (the Claimant) and Oman Insurance Company PSC (the Defendant) arising from an alleged repudiatory breach of an agreement.
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS v OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 051 — Procedural framework for complex commercial litigation (18 March 2018)
The lawsuit involves a commercial disagreement between Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC and Oman Insurance Company PSC. While the specific underlying contractual breach or tortious claim is not detailed in the procedural order, the litigation centers on a significant financial dispute, as…
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS v OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY [2017] DIFC CFI 051 — Procedural extension for filing Defence (24 December 2017)
The litigation concerns a dispute between the Claimant, Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC, and the Defendant, Oman Insurance Company PSC. The matter, registered under case number CFI 051/2017, reached a procedural juncture where the Defendant required additional time to formalize its response…
BYJU’S ALPHA v BYJU RAVEENDRAN [2025] DIFC CFI 050 — Summary assessment of costs following adjournment (31 October 2025)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s entitlement to recover legal costs incurred due to the Defendants’ application to adjourn the Return Date hearing, which had been originally scheduled for 31 July and 1 August 2025.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2024] DIFC CFI 050 — Consent order discontinuing costs assessment (19 April 2024)
The litigation originated from a Part 8 claim filed by LXT Real Estate Broker LLC on 20 July 2023, which was immediately accompanied by an urgent application for interim injunctive relief. The substantive dispute centered on the professional activities of the parties within the real estate sector.
LXT REAL ESATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Costs order following failed interim injunction (30 November 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the treatment of costs in standalone interim relief applications where the underlying claim for injunctive relief has been rendered moot.
LXT REAL ESATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Dismissal of interim injunction regarding co-branding rights (27 September 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for interim injunctive relief in commercial disputes involving the alleged breach of long-term co-branding agreements.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE LLC [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Interim injunctive relief and re-branding dispute (02 August 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a consent order adjourning an application for interim relief, mandating a pause on corporate re-branding activities pending the resolution of contractual dispute mechanisms.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Adjournment and status quo undertaking (28 July 2023)
The litigation concerns a commercial dispute between LXT Real Estate Broker and SIR Real Estate, the latter formerly known as Luxhabitat Real Estate. The Claimant, LXT Real Estate Broker, initiated proceedings via a Part 8 Claim Form on 20 July 2023, subsequently amended on 26 July 2023.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Interim injunctive relief and rebranding disputes (26 July 2023)
The lawsuit centers on a conflict between LXT Real Estate Broker L.L.C and SIR Real Estate L.L.C., the latter formerly known as Luxhabitat Real Estate L.L.C. The Claimant initiated proceedings via a Part 8 Claim Form on 20 July 2023, concurrently filing an urgent application for interim relief.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v LUXHABITAT REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 050 — Procedural adjournment of urgent injunctive relief (25 July 2023)
Justice Robert French adjourns the urgent application for interim relief in a real estate rebranding dispute, mandating service upon the Respondent before a follow-up hearing.
LATAVIA v LAZAR [2021] DIFC CFI 050 — Enforcement of share pledges and the limits of onshore bankruptcy stays (26 July 2021)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s attempt to recover substantial debts arising from a series of Islamic finance facilities. Latavia, a UAE-incorporated bank, sought to enforce its security interest over 149,555,275 ordinary shares in Leane PLC, which were pledged by the Defendant, Lazar, to…
EMERGING MARKETS PE MANAGEMENT v PORT LINK GP [2018] DIFC CFI 050 — Default judgment on partial admission (25 July 2018)
The dispute centered on a substantial financial claim brought by Emerging Markets PE Management Limited against Port Link GP, Ltd and The Port Fund LP. The Claimant sought recovery of a principal sum of USD 53,568,386, which, when combined with accrued interest calculated up to the date of the…
EMERGING MARKETS PE MANAGEMENT v PORT LINK GP [2018] DIFC CFI 050 — Judgment on admission for USD 56.9 million (02 July 2018)
The lawsuit centered on a substantial financial claim brought by Emerging Markets PE Management Limited against Port Link GP, Ltd and The Port Fund LP. The Claimant sought recovery of a principal sum of USD 53,568,386, which, when combined with accrued interest calculated up to the date of the…
PHILIPPE GINSBERG v MARCEL GUIZIS [2019] DIFC CFI 050 — Default judgment for USD 250,000 (17 April 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural rigor required to secure a default judgment when a defendant fails to engage with the court’s jurisdiction or file a defense.
PHILIPPE GINSBERG v MARCEL GUIZIS [2019] DIFC CFI 050 — Judicial authorization for alternative service via email (17 January 2019)
The dispute concerns a civil claim initiated by Philippe Ginsberg against Marcel Guizis. The core issue at stake was not the underlying merits of the debt or contractual breach, but rather the procedural impasse regarding the effective service of the Claim Form.
PHILIPPE GINSBERG v MARCEL GUIZIS [2018] DIFC CFI 050 — Procedural failure in default judgment applications (10 September 2018)
The dispute centers on a procedural application for default judgment initiated by the Claimant, Philippe Ginsberg, against the Defendant, Marcel Guizis. On 16 August 2018, the Claimant sought to move the court for a default judgment under Part 13 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
IWIRE HOLDING v IOT TECHNOLOGY-SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP [2024] DIFC CFI 049 — Adjournment of trial for amicable settlement (16 December 2024)
The litigation involves a Part 7 claim initiated by Iwire Holding against IOT Technology-Sole Proprietorship, filed on 12 July 2023. While the specific commercial merits of the claim remain confidential within the court’s procedural filings, the matter has progressed through the standard Case…
IWIRE HOLDING v IOT TECHNOLOGY-SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP [2023] DIFC CFI 049 — Procedural extension of time for Defence (18 October 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a procedural timeline adjustment in a commercial dispute, reflecting the court's reliance on party-led case management.
VISION CONSTRUCTION v BANQUE MISR UAE [2022] DIFC CFI 049 — Contractual liability for delayed investment exit (08 October 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the scope of a bank's liability for failing to execute an early redemption of Treasury Bills within the timeframe promised to the client, emphasizing the binding nature of exit calculations.
VISION CONSTRUCTION v BANQUE MISR [2024] DIFC CFI 049 — Procedural admission of expert witness evidence (25 June 2024)
The dispute between Vision Construction L.L.C. and Banque Misr U.A.E. centers on a construction-related claim initiated under case number CFI 049/2022. The specific procedural friction point arose when the Claimant, Vision Construction, sought to bolster its evidentiary position by introducing…
VISION CONSTRUCTION v BANQUE MISR UAE [2022] DIFC CFI 049 — Strike-out application and indemnity costs (05 December 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance addresses the threshold for striking out a claim due to procedural non-compliance, balancing the necessity of case management discipline against the principle of proportionality.
VISION CONSTRUCTION v BANQUE MISR [2023] DIFC CFI 049 — Trial vacation following pre-trial review (25 October 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance vacates a scheduled trial date to ensure procedural compliance with prior directions regarding the exchange of party submissions.