Latest articles
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2022] DIFC CFI 024/2020 — Costs assessment on account (21 June 2022)
Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban clarifies the quantum of interim costs payable following the substantive judgment delivered by Justice Roger Giles in the complex multi-party litigation involving Sunset Hospitality Holdings and associated entities.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CFI 024 — Agreed Consolidated Case Management Order (01 September 2021)
The litigation involves a complex web of claims and counterclaims between Sunset Hospitality Holdings Limited, Peatura FZ LLC, and Fix Sense Management LLC against Hana Habib Mansoor Habib Al Herz, alongside related corporate entities.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2020] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural dismissal and appellate leave (12 November 2020)
The dispute centers on the procedural attempt by the Defendant, Hana Habib Mansoor Habib Al Herz, to introduce a counterclaim against the Claimants, Sunset Hospitality Holdings Limited and Peatura FZ LLC.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS LIMITED v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2020] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural discipline in Part 8 claims (01 October 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the necessity of strict adherence to procedural timelines in Part 8 claims, dismissing late-stage applications for evidence, counterclaims, and procedural transfers.
TRANSCOM DMCC v KPR AGROCHEM [2019] DIFC CFI 024 — Default judgment for breach of debt and guarantee (30 March 2020)
The lawsuit centered on a commercial debt recovery action initiated by Transcom DMCC against KPR Agrochem Ltd. The claim was predicated on the breach of a Deed of Acknowledgment of Debt and Guarantee, which had been executed by the parties on 10 May 2017.
TRANSCOM DMCC v KPR AGROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 024 — Default costs assessment following failure to file points of dispute (12 February 2020)
The dispute originated from a substantive claim brought by Transcom DMCC against KPR Agrochem, which culminated in a Default Judgment issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi on 5 September 2019.
EBI SA v LAL MAHAL DMCC [2017] DIFC CFI 024 — Jurisdictional dismissal for lack of clear opt-in (10 April 2017)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that a generic "liberty to resort to other courts" clause fails to satisfy the "specific, clear and express" requirement for DIFC jurisdiction under Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law.
EBI SA, FRANCE v LAL MAHAL DMCC [2016] DIFC CFI 024 — Permission to appeal refused (23 November 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the independence of banking instruments from underlying facility agreements, summarily dismissing an attempt to challenge jurisdiction based on external Nigerian litigation.
ZIAD AZZAM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT [2016] DIFC CFI 024 — Exclusive jurisdiction over parallel Dubai Court proceedings (03 January 2016)
The dispute centered on the competing jurisdictional claims between the DIFC Courts and the onshore Dubai Courts. Ziad Azzam initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance, seeking to challenge or address matters that were already the subject of litigation in the Dubai Courts under claim…
ZIAD AZZAM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT P.J.S.C. [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Exclusive jurisdiction over parallel Dubai Court proceedings (28 December 2015)
The dispute centered on the intersection of parallel proceedings initiated by the parties in different judicial systems. Ziad Azzam, the Claimant, sought relief in the DIFC Courts, while Deyaar Development P.J.S.C., the Defendant, had already initiated proceedings against Azzam in the Dubai Courts…
Ziad Azzam v Deyaar Development [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Anti-suit injunctions and jurisdictional restraint (09 December 2015)
The dispute arose from the fallout of the high-profile *Taaleem* litigation, which concerned the sale of an interest in the Sky Gardens Tower located within the DIFC. Ziad Azzam, the former CEO of Taaleem, sought to prevent Deyaar Development from pursuing a separate lawsuit in the Dubai Courts.
ZIAD AZZAM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural extension for evidence filing (17 September 2015)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Ziad Azzam against the real estate developer Deyaar Development P.J.S.C. The matter reached a procedural juncture in September 2015 regarding the timeline for the exchange of evidence.
OMER SERIF OZCELIK v AAMER ABDULAZIZ AHMED SALMAN [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Default judgment for failure to respond (30 October 2014)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural requirements for obtaining a default judgment against multiple defendants who failed to acknowledge service or file a defense in a civil claim for USD 208,850.
DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v DEUTSCHE BANK AG [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Regulatory enforcement via consent order (06 February 2014)
The dispute centers on the DFSA’s regulatory oversight of Deutsche Bank AG’s Private Wealth Management (PWM) operations within the DIFC. The DFSA issued formal notices on 25 July 2013 and 1 October 2013, exercising its investigative powers under Article 80 of the Regulatory Law 2004.
DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v DEUTSCHE BANK AG [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Regulatory pleading amendments and confidentiality (25 November 2013)
The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) initiated an application on 20 November 2013, seeking the court’s permission to modify its existing Particulars of Claim against Deutsche Bank AG.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS v BARCLAYS BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Interim payment of costs order (04 March 2015)
The dispute in CFI 024/2010 involved a complex multi-party litigation initiated by Corinth Pipeworks S.A. against Barclays Bank, which subsequently brought Part 21 proceedings against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Referral for contempt proceedings (27 April 2014)
The Court of First Instance exercises its inherent power to refer evidence of potential contempt to the Dubai Attorney General following the submission of irregular correspondence by the Part 21 Defendants.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural orders on service and legal representation (23 April 2014)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently brought Part 21 claims against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order staying proceedings (14 April 2014)
The litigation between Corinth Pipeworks SA and Barclays Bank PLC involved a complex commercial dispute that reached the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 024/2010. While the underlying factual allegations and the specific quantum of the claim remained confidential due to the…
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations in Part 21 proceedings (16 December 2013)
The litigation involves a complex dispute where Corinth Pipeworks SA (the Claimant) and Barclays Bank PLC (the Defendant) sought extensive document production from the Part 21 Defendants, namely Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — procedural recalibration of complex multi-party litigation (11 September 2013)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute initiated by Corinth Pipeworks SA against Barclays Bank PLC. The matter expanded significantly when Barclays introduced a Part 21 claim against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — dismissal of time extension for appeal notices (11 August 2013)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a complex multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently involved Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar as Defendants to a Part 21 claim.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Consolidation of related proceedings (28 July 2013)
The consolidation order stems from the need to manage overlapping litigation involving the same core financial disputes. Corinth Pipeworks S.A. had initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC under CFI 024/2010, while a subsequent action, CFI 008/2013, involved Barclays Bank PLC as a claimant…
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations and procedural compliance (16 July 2013)
The dispute centers on a wide-ranging discovery process initiated by both parties in the context of a banking claim. Corinth Pipeworks SA sought extensive documentation from Barclays Bank PLC, leading to a series of specific Requests to Produce that required judicial intervention to resolve.