Latest articles
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — Amendment of pleadings to include statutory claims for unlicensed financial services (23 April 2013)
The Claimants, Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi and others, sought to amend their pleadings to introduce a substantive claim against the Second Defendant, Bank Sarasin & Co Limited (Sarasin Switzerland).
MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2013] DIFC CFI 026 — Amendment of pleadings regarding Financial Services Prohibition (15 April 2013)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants the Claimants limited permission to amend their pleadings to assert a claim against the Second Defendant for breach of the Financial Services Prohibition under Article 41 of the Law.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2012] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural timeline adjustment for disclosure and expert evidence (18 November 2012)
This consent order formalizes a revised procedural schedule for disclosure and expert reporting in the long-running litigation between the Al Khorafi claimants and the Bank Sarasin entities.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2011] DIFC CFI 026 — Extension of time for appeal following substantive ruling (24 April 2011)
The litigation involves a complex banking dispute between the Claimants—Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and the Respondents, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2011] DIFC CFI 026 — Jurisdictional dismissal of foreign banking entity (31 March 2011)
The litigation arose from a complex banking dispute involving three claimants—Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—who sought legal recourse against two distinct corporate entities: Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited (the First…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CFI 026 — Partial strike out and security for costs order (03 August 2010)
The lawsuit involves a complex banking dispute brought by Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Ltd.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural order for cross-border service of process (25 March 2010)
This order details the specific procedural requirements for serving a foreign defendant in Switzerland through diplomatic channels under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural directions for banking litigation (04 February 2010)
The litigation involves a claim brought by three individual claimants—Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—against two corporate entities: Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited (BSA) and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited (BSC).
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 025 — Assessment of costs following dismissed appeal (24 March 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance provides a clear reminder on the limits of recoverable legal fees, emphasizing that hourly rates must strictly adhere to Practice Direction caps and that "copy-paste" drafting across concurrent cases warrants a reduction in billable hours.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 025 — Dismissal of renewed application for permission to appeal (29 January 2026)
The dispute centers on the contractual rights of Jonathan David Sheppard, the former Chief Technology Officer of Sadapay Technologies, following his attempt to exercise an option to acquire restricted shares. The conflict arose after Mr.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Costs assessment following refused permission to appeal (16 December 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance provides a critical reminder on proportionality and the assessment of legal costs when counsel manages multiple linked proceedings simultaneously.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal of permission to appeal regarding employment limitation periods (20 November 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the restrictive limitation periods under the DIFC Employment Law do not apply to all employment-related disputes, specifically excluding contractual claims regarding share valuation.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Clarifying the distinction between employment remuneration and share incentive plan breaches (19 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that disputes arising from share incentive plans are not inherently 'employment claims' under the DIFC Employment Law, potentially shielding such actions from the strict six-month limitation period.
NATASHA v NOAH [2024] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal of permission to appeal following litigant in person proceedings (03 October 2024)
The dispute arises from a Part 8 Claim initiated by Natasha on 15 April 2024, which was subsequently amended on 17 May 2024. Following the initial adjudication of this claim, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke issued an Order with Reasons on 22 July 2024.
NATASHA v NOAH [2024] DIFC CFI 025 — Restitution and waiver of termination rights (22 July 2024)
The Court of First Instance confirms that a party who accepts performance after a breach—specifically by cashing postdated cheques—waives the right to terminate a contract, entitling the counterparty to full restitution of paid sums.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Default judgment and electronic service validity (06 September 2023)
This ruling clarifies the scope of RDC 9.19 regarding electronic service of process and confirms the threshold for obtaining default judgment against entities operating within the DIFC.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Retrospective extension of time for appeal due to portal failure (01 September 2023)
The underlying litigation involves a claim for USD 278,934 brought by Marko and Barbara Kralj against a group of entities collectively referred to as the Royal Vision Group, including Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited and Royal Vision Capital (DIFC) Limited.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Default Judgment procedural requirements (14 June 2023)
The dispute involves a claim brought by Marko and Barbara Kralj against a complex array of entities and individuals, including Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited, Royal Vision Holding, Royal Vision Holding Limited, Royal Vision Capital (DIFC) Limited, Danylo Shamatava, and Stefan Frieb.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal to set aside default judgment following admission of liability (07 November 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that a defendant’s financial inability to satisfy a debt does not constitute a valid legal ground to set aside a default judgment where liability has been formally admitted.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Default judgment following failed jurisdictional challenge (22 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants a default judgment for AED 44 million after the defendant fails to file a defence following the dismissal of its jurisdictional challenge.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Jurisdiction over share-based payment obligations (31 August 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms its exclusive jurisdiction over shareholder-related disputes, distinguishing corporate obligations from property-related claims in a complex real estate investment structure.
CALVIN E JUNGQUIST v CORBIN CROSSROADS CONSULTING [2021] DIFC CFI 025 — Dismissal of consultancy fee claims arising from UAE defence offset programmes (24 August 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed a multi-faceted claim for breach of contract and conspiracy, clarifying the scope of consultancy agreements within the complex regulatory framework of US-UAE Foreign Military Sales and defence offset obligations.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Costs allocation and interim payment refusal (27 September 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the application of RDC 38.8(1) in complex multi-party litigation, balancing the general rule of costs following the event against specific issue-based success.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural extension for costs submissions (15 August 2023)
The litigation involves a substantial banking claim brought by the Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) against a series of corporate and individual defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Ventures Ltd, Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several named individuals: Vijey Kapoor, Ravi…