Latest articles
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES v OMER TRANSPORT [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Consent order extending stay of proceedings (28 July 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a continued pause in litigation between Caterpillar Financial Services and the Omer group entities to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES v OMER TRANSPORT [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Consent order for stay of proceedings (22 June 2020)
The litigation involves a multi-party claim brought by Caterpillar Financial Services (Dubai) Limited against three distinct defendants: Omer Transport LLC, Omer Crushers & Quarries LLC, and an individual, Mr Ayman Abdul Baki.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES v OMER TRANSPORT [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Procedural leave to re-amend pleadings (16 February 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Caterpillar Financial Services (Dubai) Limited against three defendants: Omer Transport LLC, Omer Crushers & Quarries LLC, and Mr. Ayman Abdul Baki.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v SHAIKA RANAYA HAMAD MUBARAK HAMAD AL KHALIFA [2021] DIFC CFI 047 — Immediate judgment following failure to comply with an Unless Order (07 January 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural consequences of failing to satisfy an Unless Order, resulting in the striking out of a defence and the entry of immediate judgment for the Claimant.
COMMERCIAL BANK DUBAI v SHAIKHA RANEYA HAMAD MUBARAK AL KHALIFA [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Strike out for non-compliance with Unless Order (11 June 2020)
This order marks the procedural conclusion of the Fourth Defendant’s participation in the proceedings following a failure to adhere to a peremptory court directive.
COMMERCIAL BANK DUBAI v SHAIKHA RANEYA HAMAD MUBARAK AL KHALIFA [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Unless order for procedural compliance (19 May 2020)
The dispute arises from ongoing commercial litigation initiated by Commercial Bank Dubai PSC against several defendants, including the Fourth Defendant, Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Al Khalifa.
COMMERCIAL BANK DUBAI v SHAIKHA RANEYA HAMAD MUBARAK AL KHALIFA [2020] DIFC CFI 047 — Procedural amendment of pleadings (09 March 2020)
The litigation, initiated by Commercial Bank Dubai PSC, had reached a stage of significant consolidation by late 2019. Having previously secured judgment against the First, Second, and Third Defendants on 23 January 2019, and having subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the Second…
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE [2019] DIFC CFI 047 — Withdrawal of legal representation (22 October 2019)
The lawsuit involves a claim brought by Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C. against multiple defendants, including M/S Totora Restaurant & Lounge LLC, Mr. Ahmad Mohamed Ramadhan Al Rafei, Mr. Ali Abdullah Al Sidani, and Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Al Khalifa.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE [2019] DIFC CFI 047 — Finality of JJC jurisdictional determinations (10 October 2019)
The litigation concerns a recovery claim initiated by the Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C. against four defendants, including the Fourth Defendant, Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa. The bank sought to recover a total of AED 4,500,000 on a joint and several basis.
COMMERCIAL BANK DUBAI v AHMAD MOHAMED RAMADHAN AL RAFEI [2019] DIFC CFI 047 — Consent order following JJC jurisdictional determination (15 September 2019)
A consent order formalizing the withdrawal of claims against the Second Defendant following a successful referral to the Joint Judicial Committee and subsequent private settlement.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2019] DIFC CFI 047 — Stay of proceedings pending JJC referral (16 July 2019)
This order addresses the procedural intersection between DIFC Court litigation and the jurisdiction of the Joint Judicial Committee (JJC) regarding the Second Defendant in a banking dispute.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2019] DIFC CFI 047 — Stay of proceedings pending JJC determination (04 April 2019)
The litigation involves a commercial banking dispute initiated by Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC against multiple parties, including M/S Totora Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Ahmad Mohamed Ramadhan Al Rafei, Ali Abdullah Al Sidani, and Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE [2018] DIFC CFI 047 — Assessment of costs following detailed bill review (15 November 2018)
The litigation involved a claim brought by Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C. against multiple parties, including M/S Totora Restaurant & Lounge LLC, Mr. Ali Sidani, and Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v M/S TOTORA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2018] DIFC CFI 047 — Assessing costs for concluded interim applications (21 June 2018)
This order clarifies the procedural timing for the detailed assessment of costs in the DIFC Courts, confirming that interim applications concluded by a court order are ripe for assessment regardless of the status of the main proceedings.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI v TOTORA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2018] DIFC CFI 047 — Witness statement impropriety and counsel conduct (11 March 2018)
The dispute arose from a jurisdictional challenge filed by the Third Defendant, Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa, against the Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC. In response to the Third Defendant’s jurisdictional application dated 7 December 2017, the Claimant filed a witness statement…
NATIXIS S.A. v FAST TELECOM GENERAL TRADING [2016] DIFC CFI 047 — Immediate judgment for breach of facility agreement (15 May 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the threshold for immediate judgment in commercial banking disputes, confirming that a defendant’s failure to present a substantial defense to clear contractual obligations necessitates summary disposal.
NATIXIS S.A. v FAST TELECOM GENERAL TRADING [2016] CFI 047 — Immediate judgment granted for breach of facility agreement (15 January 2018)
The dispute centered on a breach of a Facility Agreement dated 22 December 2015, under which Natixis S.A. provided an uncommitted loan facility of up to USD 30,000,000.00 to Fast Telecom General Trading LLC.
NATIXIS S.A. v FAST TELECOM GENERAL TRADING [2017] DIFC CFI 047 — Jurisdiction over facility agreement breaches (01 May 2017)
The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a Facility Agreement entered into between Natixis S.A. (the Claimant) and Fast Telecom General Trading LLC (the Defendant) on 22 December 2015.
NATXIS S.A. v FAST TELECOM GENERAL TRADING [2017] DIFC CFI 047 — Judicial removal of legal counsel (02 March 2017)
The litigation between Natxis S.A. and Fast Telecom General Trading LLC reached a procedural juncture in early 2017 regarding the status of the defendant’s legal counsel. The dispute, initiated under case number CFI 047/2016, involved a formal application filed by the law firm CVML, which had been…
ONDINA v OLIN [2025] DIFC CFI 046 — Employment termination and probation disputes (16 September 2025)
The litigation originated in the Small Claims Court (SCT) under claim number SCT-415-2024, where the Claimant, Ondina, sought redress for what she alleged was an unfair termination by the Respondent, Olin.
GTC TRADING S.A. v HAZEM ABDOLSHAHID MAHMOUDI RASHED [2026] DIFC CFI 046 — Dismissal of application to purge contempt (24 February 2026)
The lawsuit concerns the enforcement of a long-standing judgment debt owed by Hazem Abdolshahid Mahmoudi Rashed to GTC Trading S.A. Following earlier findings of contempt by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in November 2023, the First Defendant was subject to a debarring order that stripped him of his…
GTC TRADING S.A. v HAZEM ABDOLSHAHID MAHMOUDI RASHED [2026] DIFC CFI 046 — Approval of share sale and amendment of payment mechanism (30 January 2026)
The dispute concerns the enforcement of a judgment debt originally valued at approximately USD 24.29 million, arising from a Dubai Commercial Court judgment recognized by the DIFC Courts. The primary assets subject to execution are shares in H.M.R. Investment Holding Ltd (the "HMR Shares").
GTC TRADING S.A. v HAZEM ABDOLSHAHID MAHMOUDI RASHED [2024] DIFC CFI 046 — Enforcement and Chabra Injunctions (18 September 2024)
The litigation concerns the efforts of GTC Trading S.A. to enforce a judgment debt against Hazem Abdolshahid Mahmoudi Rashed (D1). The claimant sought and obtained Worldwide Freezing Orders (WWFOs) and disclosure orders against D1, H.M.R Investment Holding Limited (D2), and several other entities…
GTC TRADING SA v HAZEM ABDOLSHAHID MAHMOUDI RASHED [2024] DIFC CFI 046 — Enforcement, contempt, and the rejection of tactical delays (30 May 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces its authority to execute recognized onshore judgments, dismissing attempts by the Defendants to stall proceedings through last-minute applications for adjournments and unmeritorious appeals.