LITT
Try LITT free
KBH KAANUUN v JANAYEN II [2011] DIFC ENF 002 — Compelling disclosure in enforcement proceedings (15 February 2011)
In the enforcement proceedings brought by KBH Kaanuun Limited against Janayen II Limited, the Court issued a rigorous order requiring the disclosure of comprehensive financial information.
JAD AL FARES v AMANAH XDATA [2010] DIFC ENF 001 — Execution of judgment debt via asset seizure (18 January 2010)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of a judgment debt owed by Amanah Xdata to Jad Al Fares. Following the entry of judgment on 27 December 2009, the Claimant sought an execution order to recover the outstanding principal and associated court fees.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2021] DIFC CA 014 — Procedural scheduling for appeal on limitation and loss recoverability (08 December 2021)
The litigation involves a multi-party claim brought by Nest Investments Holding Lebanon S.A.L. and several co-claimants, including (2) Jordanian Expatriates Investment Holding Company (4) Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (5) Jamal Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (6) Trust Compass Insurance S.A.L.
OSKAR v OLINDO [2024] DIFC CA 009 — Appellate clarification of 'Officer' status for RDC 50 enforcement (30 October 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the functional interpretation of 'Officer' under RDC 50.2, confirming that majority shareholders and former managers may be compelled to provide information regarding a judgment debtor's assets.
SHAHAB HAIDER v ERNST & YOUNG MIDDLE EAST [2012] DIFC CA 004 — Costs award following Court of Appeal proceedings (30 April 2012)
The dispute originated from the liquidation proceedings of Diwan Capital Limited and Orion Holding Overseas Limited. Shahab Haider, acting in his capacity as the liquidator for these entities, initiated proceedings against Ernst & Young Middle East.
ZUZANA KAPOVA v MILOSLAV MAKOVINI [2023] DIFC CA 004 — Appeal concerning security for costs and adverse inferences (12 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal confirms that a claimant’s failure to provide transparent asset disclosure in the face of suspicious cross-border transfers justifies an adverse inference for the purposes of security for costs under RDC 25.102(6).
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2020] DIFC CA 001 — Indemnity costs and non-party liability (17 March 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for indemnity costs and the circumstances under which a non-party director can be held personally liable for the costs of litigation funded and controlled for personal benefit.
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2016] DIFC CA 013 — Appeal against security for costs order (18 December 2017)
The litigation concerns a claim for specific performance of a lease agreement dated 5 April 2012, involving two units, LP5 and LP6, located in Limestone House. The Appellant, Vegie Bar LLC (VB), contends that it concluded a lease agreement with Union Properties PJSC and that this interest is…
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2020] DIFC CA 001 — Indemnity costs and non-party liability for speculative appeals (31 March 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for indemnity costs and the circumstances under which a director may be held personally liable for the costs of an insolvent corporate litigant.
TR88HOUSE RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE v BOND INTERIOR DESIGN [2024] DIFC CA 006 — Costs adjudication following consent order (20 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the strict application of RDC Part 32 costs consequences, confirming that informal settlement attempts do not override the financial implications of a rejected Part 32 offer.
THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2022] DIFC CA 005 and CA 006 — Clarifying the transition of employment penalties (20 September 2022)
The dispute centered on the quantum of the penalty owed to Mr. Hamid for the late payment of his end-of-service entitlements. The Court of First Instance had awarded Mr. Hamid AED 7,550,400, calculated under the provisions of the DIFC Employment Law 2005.
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 002 — The Court of Appeal’s first exercise of advisory jurisdiction (18 January 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its advisory jurisdiction for the first time, establishing strict boundaries for interpreting DIFC legislation in the absence of a live dispute.
TVM Capital Healthcare Partners v Ali Akbar Hashemi [2014] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate review of confidentiality breaches and negotiating damages (27 January 2015)
The dispute centered on the actions of Mr. Ali Akbar Hashemi, who was accused by TVM Capital Healthcare Partners of breaching a confidentiality agreement and violating the duty of confidence under Article 37 of DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005.
TR88house Restaurant And Entertainment Centre v Bond Interior Design [2024] DIFC CA 006 — Appeal costs and double-counting rectification (18 September 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the application of RDC Part 32 cost consequences in the context of a consent-based reduction of a judgment sum due to double-counting errors.
SBM Bank v Renish Petrochem [2022] DIFC CA 011 — Fraudulent trade finance and the standard of proof (25 May 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that fraudulent intent in complex trade finance structures can be inferred from the immediate dissipation of funds, reinforcing the civil standard of proof for deceit.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — wrongful dismissal and director fiduciary duties (06 November 2014)
The dispute centers on the summary dismissal of Raul Silva, the former CEO of United Investment Bank, on 25 January 2012. The bank alleged that Silva engaged in unauthorized expenditure and failed to adhere to board directives regarding the terms of employment contracts for senior staff.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Wrongful dismissal and fiduciary duty dispute (21 August 2014)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the evidentiary threshold for summary dismissal in the DIFC, overturning a lower court ruling that failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding alleged gross misconduct.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Abuse of process and the finality of litigation (28 January 2019)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the strict application of the rule against abuse of process, ruling that claimants cannot re-litigate matters that should have been brought in earlier proceedings.
RADA TRADING v WEALTH BRIDGE TRADING [2021] DIFC CA 007 — Appellate reversal on the sufficiency of pleadings regarding contract variation (07 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of "Entire Agreement" clauses and the sufficiency of pleadings regarding contractual variations in the context of energy sector settlement agreements.
PETER MATTHEW JAMES GRAY v GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER [2016] DIFC CA 012 — Court of Appeal confirms mandatory stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration (12 March 2017)
The litigation arose from the termination of Peter Matthew James Gray’s employment with the international law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher. Mr. Gray initiated proceedings seeking various declarations, indemnities, and monetary compensation, alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed.
PANTHER REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT v MODERN EXECUTIVE SYSTEMS CONTRACTING [2022] DIFC CA 016 — FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1 and the condition precedent debate (12 May 2023)
The litigation centers on a construction contract for the "East 40 Building" in Al Furjan, Dubai, entered into on 11 July 2017. Panther Real Estate Development, the Employer, contracted with Modern Executive Systems Contracting (MESC) for the construction of a residential tower for a contract price…
OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY v GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS [2021] DIFC CA 009 — Appellate review of procedural discretion in late-stage amendments (28 December 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for allowing late amendments to pleadings, emphasizing that procedural delays must be weighed against the interests of justice rather than reflexively attributed to tactical maneuvering.
NIHAN v NICHOLAS [2024] DIFC CA 012 — Clarifying the distinction between arbitrability and public policy (14 November 2024)
The litigation arose from a breach of a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) and a Memorandum of Association (MoA) concerning a water desalination project. The Claimant, Nihan, a Spanish entity, sought to enforce a final arbitral award against the Defendants, Nicholas and Niaz, following an ICC-seated…
NEAL v NADIR [2024] DIFC CA 001 — Enforcement of foreign-seated interim arbitral awards (22 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal confirms that interim measures issued as an arbitral award are enforceable within the DIFC, regardless of the seat of arbitration, reinforcing the jurisdiction's pro-enforcement stance.