LITT
Try LITT free
NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION v TAALEEM PJSC [2011] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the scope of 'Courts of Dubai' jurisdiction clauses (11 May 2011)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the phrase 'courts of Dubai, UAE' does not automatically exclude the DIFC Courts, emphasizing that the surrounding contractual context and the nature of the transaction are paramount in determining the parties' intended forum.
Nael v Niamh Bank [2024] DIFC CA 015 — Enforcement of arbitral awards and the public policy exception (09 January 2025)
The dispute arose from a construction project where Nael (the Employer) sought to enforce an arbitral award against Niamh Bank (the Bank) following the insolvency of the project's contractor.
NS Investments v Ajay Sethi [2021] DIFC CA 010 — Setting aside default judgment for procedural non-compliance (18 November 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the mandatory nature of RDC filing requirements, ruling that a default judgment cannot stand when a defendant has effectively communicated a defense, even if formal acknowledgment of service was omitted.
MR. SALEM DWELA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 009 — Limitation periods for misrepresentation in real estate disputes (03 March 2021)
The dispute centers on a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) executed on 18 May 2010 between the appellant, Mr. Salem Dwela, and the respondent, Damac Park Towers Company. Mr. Dwela agreed to purchase a property unit for a total base price of AED 3,844,048, which was fully paid by July 2011.
MEYDAN GROUP v BANYAN TREE CORPORATE [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Affirming DIFC jurisdiction over domestic arbitration awards (03 November 2014)
The dispute originated from a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) dated 15 August 2007, concerning a luxury hotel property in Dubai. Banyan Tree Corporate, a Singaporean entity, sought to enforce a DIAC arbitration award against Meydan Group, a UAE-based real estate developer, following the wrongful…
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 and CA 004 — Court of Appeal dismisses multi-million Euro fraud claim following failed Cypriot litigation (25 August 2022)
The litigation involved a claim by Massun against various defendants, seeking to recover assets—specifically a yacht and property in Spain—allegedly misappropriated through fraud and conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 004 — Dismissal of claims and setting aside of freezing orders following failure of underlying Cypriot proceedings (22 July 2022)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to recover assets, specifically a yacht and a Spanish property valued at over EUR 30 million, which she alleged were the subject of a fraudulent conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate intervention on pleading amendments and immediate judgment (22 July 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal’s decision in Massun v Mousi clarifies the strict threshold for amending pleadings and the court's willingness to grant immediate judgment when a claimant fails to substantiate a viable cause of action.
MASHREQ AL ISLAMI FINANCE COMPANY v MR BABAR REHMAN [2019] DIFC CA 002 — Appellate review of indemnity costs and payment reconciliation (02 October 2019)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of recoverable costs in Islamic finance litigation, ruling that pre-litigation expenses cannot be bundled into an indemnity costs assessment.
MARWAN LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2013] DIFC CA 003 — Employment termination, discrimination, and pension entitlement (26 November 2014)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the boundaries of marital status discrimination and confirms the absence of unfair dismissal claims under the unamended DIFC Employment Law.
MAG FINANCIAL SERVICES v THERON ENTERTAINMENT [2017] DIFC CA 006 — Tenancy termination and damages for lost profits (28 January 2018)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the interpretation of termination clauses in contracts of adhesion and sets a high evidentiary bar for claims of lost profits in commercial tenancy disputes.
LURAL v LISTRAN [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Exclusive jurisdiction and the limits of Article 5(A)(4) (10 February 2021)
The dispute centered on whether a judgment obtained in an Abu Dhabi court, in direct violation of an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring the DIFC, could constitute a "final judgment" sufficient to strip the DIFC Courts of jurisdiction under Article 5(A)(4) of the Judicial Authority Law (JAL).
Mursahi v Morib [2023] DIFC SCT 349 — Immigration services fee dispute and misrepresentation claim (17 November 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the scope of contractual duties for immigration service providers, ruling that failure to disclose broader living requirements or costs does not constitute actionable misrepresentation.
MAFALDA v MAHAKIN [2021] DIFC SCT 349 — Permission to appeal granted on jurisdictional grounds (08 June 2022)
The dispute centers on an employment-related share offer contained in an offer letter dated 19 August 2021. The Claimant, Mafalda, sought to enforce a promise of 5,750 ordinary shares in the Third Defendant, which was purportedly offered by the Second Defendant as part of a remuneration package.
LAGLE v LALITA [2021] DIFC SCT 349 — Jurisdictional limits of parent company liability in employment disputes (19 April 2022)
The Claimant, Lagle, initiated proceedings in the DIFC Small Claims Tribunal seeking the final settlement of employment rights. The dispute involved a complex corporate structure comprising three entities: the First Defendant (Lalita), a DIFC-registered entity; the Second Defendant (Lakyle), a…
Jacinta v Jack Event Management [2018] DIFC SCT 349 — Enforcement of a defaulted settlement agreement in the Small Claims Tribunal (06 January 2019)
The dispute originated from an employment relationship that soured due to the financial instability of the defendant company. The claimant, Jacinta, was hired as a manager in 2012, but the company’s subsequent financial difficulties led to a request for financial assistance from its employee.
MONA FZ v MEUN [2020] DIFC SCT 348 — Enforceability of deemed approval clauses in affiliate marketing agreements (13 December 2020)
The dispute centered on the recovery of outstanding payments for software services provided under an affiliate marketing arrangement. The Claimant, a software company, sought to recover funds it alleged were owed for transactions processed through its system.
Jaako v Jacey [2018] DIFC SCT 348 — Unpaid rent and eviction order (06 January 2019)
The dispute arose from a commercial tenancy agreement concerning a retail store located within the DIFC. The parties had entered into a three-year lease agreement in 2015, which stipulated an annual rent of AED 125,000.
MUSTOHI v MURIP [2023] DIFC SCT 347 — Employment payment dispute and record-keeping obligations (17 November 2023)
The dispute centered on an employment relationship governed by an agreement dated 12 September 2022, though the claimant had been working for the respondent since February 2021. The claimant sought recovery of unpaid salary, vacation leave, public holiday pay, and overtime compensation.
JABRIL v JULIET (U.K.) LIMITED [2019] DIFC SCT 347 — Discretionary commission payments and Article 18 penalties (24 January 2019)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s assertion that his employer, Juliet (U.K.) Limited, failed to pay a 2017 commission payment in a timely manner following his termination on 30 May 2018.
MINIAN v MIBAD INVESTMENTS [2020] DIFC SCT 346 — Enforceability of invoice payment timelines and opt-in jurisdiction (14 February 2021)
The dispute concerns a claim for unpaid legal fees arising from an Engagement Agreement dated 17 December 2017. The Claimant, a law firm, provided extensive legal services to the Defendant, a real estate developer, specifically regarding the development of the "Misar Residences" project.
IGASHO v IGRAINE ACCOUNTING AND BOOKKEEPING [2017] DIFC SCT 346 — Dispute over outsourced service provider fees (20 March 2018)
The litigation centered on a contractual disagreement following the Claimant’s transition from an employee to an outsourced service provider. The Claimant sought payment for work performed on three specific client projects, with the primary contention involving the client Ikale LTD.
LIMONE v LIVAT [2022] DIFC SCT 342 — Jurisdictional autonomy in DIFC tenancy disputes (18 October 2022)
The dispute centered on the expiration of a tenancy contract for a unit located within the Dubai International Financial Centre. The Claimant, Limone, sought a judicial order compelling the Defendant, Livat, to vacate the premises upon the contract's expiry on 30 November 2022.
JOSEY v JEROME [2019] DIFC SCT 342 — Employment dispute regarding unpaid final settlement and Article 18 penalties (12 September 2019)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Claimant, Josey, by his employer, Jerome, on 25 June 2019. Following his dismissal, the Claimant initiated proceedings in the SCT seeking various unpaid entitlements, including service charges, tips, overtime, annual leave, public holidays, and air…