Latest articles
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2018] DIFC CFI 026/2014 — Permission to appeal granted on set-off doctrines (05 February 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants leave to appeal an order concerning the application of mandatory and judicial set-off under the UAE Civil Code, citing significant public interest in clarifying these core legal doctrines.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Refusal of leave to appeal and stay of execution (01 October 2017)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of debt obligations arising from two separate loan agreements between Standard Chartered Bank and Investment Group Private Limited. While the Defendant did not challenge the underlying merits or the quantum of the debt, they sought to obstruct enforcement by…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Immediate judgment and anti-setoff enforcement (05 September 2017)
The litigation centered on the recovery of outstanding principal amounts owed by Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL) to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) under two distinct credit facilities.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Immediate judgment on loan defaults and anti-setoff enforceability (16 August 2017)
The dispute centered on the recovery of outstanding principal amounts owed by Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL) to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) under two distinct credit facilities.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Case management conditions on counterclaims (02 April 2017)
The dispute arose in the context of long-standing litigation between Standard Chartered Bank and Investment Group Private Limited regarding a loan agreement. While the Claimant pursued summary judgment, the Defendant sought to introduce new, unpleaded counterclaims.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial stay and indemnity costs for procedural abuse (27 October 2016)
The Court of First Instance was tasked with determining an application for immediate judgment under RDC 24.1 regarding a substantial banking claim. However, the proceedings were interrupted by an order from the Chief Justice of the Dubai Court of Cassation, which triggered the involvement of the…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Dismissal of stay application pending Union Supreme Court determination (14 August 2016)
The dispute centers on the Defendant’s attempt to halt the ongoing litigation initiated by Standard Chartered Bank. Investment Group Private filed an Application Notice (CFI-026-2014/4) on 13 June 2016, requesting that the DIFC Court of First Instance stay all proceedings.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial interpretation of Article 60 conflict of jurisdiction (01 August 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that a "conflict of jurisdiction" under Article 60 of Federal Law 10 of 1973 requires a formal assertion of authority by the competing courts, rather than mere parallel filings by litigants.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CFI 026 — Consent order regarding procedural stay (30 July 2015)
The litigation involves a banking dispute initiated by Standard Chartered Bank against Investment Group Private Limited. While the underlying merits of the claim remain secondary to the procedural maneuvering in this specific order, the case centers on the Defendant’s challenge to the court's…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CFI 026 — Leave to appeal granted on public importance grounds (16 February 2015)
The litigation between Standard Chartered Bank and Investment Group Private Limited, filed under case number CFI-026-2014, centers on a high-stakes banking dispute that reached a critical juncture regarding the finality of interlocutory orders.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CFI 026 — The rejection of forum non conveniens in inter-Emirate disputes (15 January 2015)
The dispute arose from two separate loan agreements and a related security instrument, which led Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) to initiate proceedings in the DIFC Courts. The claimant sought to recover substantial sums owed by the defendant, Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL), under these…
MR PHILIPPE CHOQUE v MONDIAL [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — Jurisdictional challenge regarding non-DIFC financial services (17 March 2014)
The dispute arose from an investment in a five-year retirement plan, specifically the "Foundations Program Life Policy," which the Claimant, Mr. Philippe Choque, entered into in March 2006 based on recommendations from the First Defendant, Mondial (Dubai) LLC.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Consent order discontinuing employment dispute (20 May 2014)
The litigation initiated by Mustafa Al Hendi against Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Limited under case number CFI 026/2012 represented a formal legal challenge brought before the DIFC Courts.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Consent order staying proceedings (29 April 2014)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI 026/2012 involved a complex dispute between the Claimant, Mustafa Al Hendi, and the Respondent, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE). While the specific underlying causes of action were not detailed in the public record of the final order, the case…
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — procedural directions for pre-trial evidence and pleadings (12 December 2013)
The Claimant, Mustafa Al Hendi, sought a court order to strike out specific additional documents and witness statements introduced by the Defendant, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Limited.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — procedural directions for trial readiness (15 July 2013)
The litigation involves a dispute between Mustafa Al Hendi and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd, which has progressed to a stage requiring formal judicial intervention to manage the exchange of pleadings and the preparation of evidence.
MUSTAFA AL-HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2012] DIFC CFI 026 — Employment disclosure and document recovery dispute (17 April 2013)
A judicial intervention addressing the unauthorized removal of confidential corporate documents by a former employee and the scope of disclosure obligations in an employment claim for US$1 million in bonuses and allowances.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — Production order for misappropriated corporate documents (20 March 2013)
The dispute centers on the unauthorized removal of corporate materials by the Claimant, Mustafa Al Hendi, from the premises or digital systems of the Defendant, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — Case management and strike-out conditions (17 March 2013)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s dissatisfaction with the Defendant’s compliance regarding a Request for Further Information. Following an order by Mr. Justice David Williams on 13 November 2012, the Claimant, Mustafa Al Hendi, filed an application on 12 December 2012 (No.
MUSTAFA AL-HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2012] DIFC CFI 026 — Employment bonus dispute and RDC compliance (12 March 2013)
The Court of First Instance addresses the threshold for granting 'unless orders' in employment litigation, balancing the Claimant’s right to information against the proportionality of striking out pleadings.
MUSTAFA AL HENDI v DUBAI AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE [2012] DIFC CFI 026 — Case Management Order (13 November 2012)
A foundational procedural order establishing the litigation timeline, disclosure obligations, and alternative dispute resolution milestones in the dispute between Mustafa Al Hendi and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2011] DIFC CFI 026/2010 — Abuse of process and repetitive litigation (06 March 2012)
The litigation involved a series of claims (CFI 008/2011, 009/2011, 010/2011, 014/2011, and 016/2011) brought by Anna Dadic against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority, the Dubai International Financial Centre, and the State of the UAE.
ANNA DADIC v THE STATE OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES [2011] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial review application denied under Civil Restraint Order (19 August 2011)
The claimant, Anna Dadic, filed an application on 25 July 2011 seeking permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review against the State of the UAE, the Emirate of Dubai, the DIFC, and the DIFC Authority.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2011] DIFC CFI 026 — Extended Civil Restraint Order (21 July 2011)
The litigation history between Anna Dadic and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) reached a critical juncture following the judgment delivered on 20 July 2011.