LITT
Try LITT free
LOVYA v LAY [2021] DIFC CA 006 — The limits of appellate intervention in interlocutory injunctions (19 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal served no functional purpose because the underlying dispute regarding the nature and presentation of the guarantee cheque was already subject to pending arbitration.
LEDGER v LEEOR [2022] DIFC CA 013 — Appeal against refusal of anti-suit injunction (26 October 2022)
The dispute arose from a construction contract for a residential project in Dubai, where Ledger (the developer) and Leeor (the contractor) found themselves in a significant financial disagreement.
LARA BASEM MUSA KHOURY v MASHREQ BANK [2022] DIFC CA 007 — procedural failure and jurisdictional limits in financial disputes (28 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal confirms that strict adherence to RDC service timelines and explicit 'opt-in' jurisdiction agreements are non-negotiable prerequisites for maintaining a claim within the DIFC Courts.
LALS HOLDINGS v EMIRATES INSURANCE COMPANY [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Insurance policy interpretation regarding pandemic-related business interruption (03 July 2024)
The dispute centered on the refusal of Emirates Insurance Company (EIC) to indemnify the LALS Group for business interruption losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. LALS, a retail conglomerate operating across the GCC, sought coverage under Property All Risk and Business Interruption…
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Costs order variation and the limits of RDC 4.2(1) (24 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of its power to extend time for compliance with orders and affirms the "costs follow the event" principle despite prior unreasoned court practices.
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the threshold for automatic stays under the Joint Judicial Committee Decree (08 April 2021)
The dispute originated from a sub-contract for landscaping and swimming pool installation at the Lisan project, initially involving the Defendant (Lakhan), a contractor (Labian), and the Claimant (Lamia).
LAHELA v LAMEEZ [2020] DIFC CA 007 — The limits of the Riyadh Convention in DIFC enforcement proceedings (09 May 2021)
The dispute centered on the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in a DIFC-seated arbitration. Lameez, the respondent, sought to enforce an award against Lahela, a company registered in Iraq, for the sum of USD 4,622,589.47 plus interest and costs.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Procedural dismissal for non-compliance (29 November 2020)
The dispute centered on an application filed by King and Wood Mallesons (Mena) LLP (the Appellant) on 18 August 2020, directed at the Respondent, Meydan Group LLC. While the underlying litigation involves a complex history between the parties and Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Limited, this specific…
Bankmed (SAL) v Ibrahim Saif Hormodi [2019] DIFC CA 006 — Dismissal of appeal against default judgment (11 February 2020)
The litigation arose from a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement dated 22 December 2015, involving Bankmed (SAL) as the lender and Fast Telecom General Trading LLC, along with its former shareholder Ibrahim Saif Hormodi, as parties providing security.
NAQID v NAJAM [2024] DIFC ARB 004 — Procedural management of witness cross-examination in consolidated enforcement proceedings (28 August 2024)
The dispute arises from an arbitration award issued in favor of the Claimant, Naqid, against the Defendant, Najam, following proceedings under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).
PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM v AL-MOJIL [2016] DIFC CA 003 — Confirmation of the Spiliada doctrine for forum non conveniens (23 August 2016)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the procedural nature of forum non conveniens in the DIFC, formally adopting the English Spiliada test to determine the appropriateness of the forum.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Retrospective application of limitation periods under the 2019 Employment Law (20 December 2021)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Appellant’s employment with Expresso Telecom Group, a company incorporated within the DIFC, following the conclusion of three consecutive fixed-term contracts that ended on 31 July 2014.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal regarding the cessation of legal representation (20 March 2017)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of the 'slip rule' and the duration of solicitor authority following unsuccessful jurisdictional challenges.
JOHN VITALO v ATLAS MARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES [2019] DIFC CA 012 — Appellate review of discretionary remuneration and holiday pay claims (23 March 2020)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of employer discretion regarding remuneration adjustments and the interpretation of contractual indexation clauses in high-level executive employment agreements.
Ithmar Capital v 8 Investment [2008] DIFC CA 001 — The duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte freezing injunctions (17 March 2008)
The Court of Appeal’s inaugural judgment clarifies the strict requirements for ex parte freezing injunctions in the DIFC, emphasizing that material non-disclosure warrants the discharge of existing orders even if a fresh injunction is subsequently granted.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CA 004 — The inapplicability of forum non conveniens between UAE courts (19 November 2015)
The dispute centers on two loan agreements and a Share Pledge Agreement executed between Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL). Following alleged defaults, SCB initiated proceedings in the DIFC Courts to recover outstanding sums and enforce the security.
IGPL General Trading v Hortin Holdings [2021] DIFC CA 013 and DIFC CA 015 — Dismissal of appeal regarding corporate authority and the Duomatic principle (23 March 2022)
The dispute centered on the Appellant’s attempt to enforce alleged tenancy agreements dated 16 January 2013 and 4 March 2013, which purportedly granted the Appellant rights over London properties owned by the Respondents.
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL [2019] DIFC CA 014 — Appellate review of damages for breach of irrevocable undertaking (06 July 2020)
The litigation arose from a breakdown in a supply-chain financing arrangement between IDBI Bank and Amira C Foods International DMCC. Amira, a major supplier of Indian basmati rice, relied on credit facilities provided by the Bank to procure commodities from its primary supplier, A K Global…
HORIZON ENERGY v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2022] DIFC CA 015 — Affirming DIFC jurisdiction over insurance disputes (04 May 2023)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the DIFC Courts are a constituent part of the UAE judicial system, rejecting attempts to use federal insurance administrative procedures to oust DIFC jurisdiction.
HORIZON ENERGY v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2023] DIFC CA 015 — Court of Appeal affirms DIFC jurisdiction over insurance negative declarations (19 April 2023)
The litigation arose from a marine insurance dispute involving a tanker, the "BETA," which disappeared while allegedly in the service of the Iranian Navy. Horizon Energy, the insured, sought compensation for the loss of the vessel, which was covered under a Marine Hull and Machinery Policy and a…
HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 003 — The Court of Appeal clarifies the high threshold for summary disposal in complex contractual disputes (10 January 2021)
The litigation centers on a high-stakes dispute arising from a 2004 agreement intended to develop land within the Dubai International Financial Centre. Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited initiated proceedings against the DIFC Authority and its subsidiary, DIFC Investments LLC, seeking damages for…
HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate reversal of immediate judgment (29 September 2020)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute involving Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the two Respondents: the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Reopening of final appeal on costs (13 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal reaffirms the high threshold for reopening final judgments, ruling that a party’s failure to proactively address costs during proceedings does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" under RDC 44.154.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Procedural discretion and the misuse of Part 8 proceedings (21 February 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of judicial discretion when denying procedural transfers, emphasizing that a focus on "lateness" cannot override the necessity of determining a claim on its merits.