LITT
Try LITT free
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent order for re-amendment of pleadings (02 May 2019)
The litigation involves a substantial multi-party action brought by Nest Investment Holding Lebanon S.A.L. and ten co-claimants, including various corporate entities and individual investors such as Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl and His Excellency Sheikh Nasser Bin Ali Bin Saud Al Thani.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent order regarding costs of joinder application (28 April 2019)
The litigation involved a complex procedural battle concerning the Claimants' attempt to join Mr. El Fadl to the ongoing proceedings against Deloitte & Touche (M.E.). The Claimants, a group of eleven entities and individuals including Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman…
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Consent Order regarding costs extension (09 April 2019)
The Court of Appeal formalizes a procedural extension for cost resolution following the substantive judgment in the long-running dispute between Nest Investment Holding and Deloitte & Touche.
ELSECO LIMITED v MR PIERRE-ERIC DANIEL BERNARD LYS [2016] DIFC CA 011 — Leave to appeal granted on public importance grounds (09 October 2016)
The underlying dispute involves Elseco Limited and Mr. Pierre-Eric Daniel Bernard Lys, stemming from a judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani on 14 July 2016. Following that decision, Mr.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPORTS ELITE [2022] DIFC CA 010 — Settlement and stay of proceedings (11 October 2022)
The litigation involved a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Dar Al Mal Limited, and the Defendant, originally identified as Barcelona Spain Elite S.L.- BSE. The conflict spanned two distinct levels of the DIFC judicial system, specifically the Court of First Instance (CFI-014-2022) and the…
FIRST ABU DHABI BANK v LARMAG HOLDING [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Dismissal of appeal against jurisdictional ruling (30 September 2019)
The lawsuit centers on a jurisdictional challenge brought by First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC and FAB Securities LLC (the Appellants) against Larmag Holding B.V. (the Respondent). The dispute originated from a ruling by Justice Sir Richard Field on 4 August 2019, which determined that the DIFC Courts…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order for extension of time regarding costs assessment (05 May 2019)
This Court of Appeal order formalizes a procedural extension for cost recovery mechanisms following the conclusion of long-standing banking litigation.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order regarding cost payment deadlines (02 April 2019)
The dispute stems from the long-running litigation between Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi and others against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin Limited. Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment dated 28 January 2019, the Claimants were ordered to satisfy the costs…
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Consent order regarding costs assessment timelines (12 September 2019)
This order formalizes a procedural extension for the payment of costs and the filing of assessment requests in the long-running litigation between the Al Khorafi claimants and Bank J. Safra Sarasin.
BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI [2020] DIFC CA 010 — Discontinuance following confidential settlement (22 April 2020)
The litigation involved Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd as Appellants against Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai as Respondents.
SKY NEWS ARABIA FZ-LLC v KASSAB MEDIA FZ [2017] DIFC CA 010 — Affirming the primacy of the Judicial Authority Law in opt-in jurisdiction (12 July 2017)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction is governed exclusively by the Judicial Authority Law, validating contractual opt-in clauses despite challenges based on Federal Commercial Agency Law.
KASSAB MEDIA FZ v SKY NEWS ARABIA FZ-LLC [2018] DIFC CA 010 — Final costs assessment following Court of Appeal judgment (29 November 2018)
The dispute between Kassab Media FZ and Sky News Arabia FZ-LLC culminated in a detailed costs assessment process overseen by the DIFC Courts. Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered on 12 July 2017, the parties entered into a secondary phase of litigation focused on the recovery of legal…
DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT v TAALEEM and NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2017] DIFC CA 010 — Variation of costs orders post-appeal (03 May 2017)
The dispute arose following the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 18 August 2016, which initially ordered the Appellant, Deyaar Development, to pay the costs of both Respondents—Taaleem and National Bonds Corporation (NBC).
SALEM DWELA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 009 — Procedural directions on the application of the Law of Obligations (30 November 2020)
The litigation arises from a property-related dispute between the Appellant, Mr. Salem Dwela, and the Respondent, Damac Park Towers Company. The core of the disagreement involves the contractual and legal obligations governing the relationship between the parties, specifically concerning the…
VTJ Limited v Mohammed Ammar Al Hassan [2018] DIFC CA 009 — Appellate reversal on specific performance and the burden of proof for fraud (06 November 2018)
The Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance dismissal, enforcing a real estate Memorandum of Understanding after finding that the trial judge improperly inferred fraud without evidence.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP UK LIMITED v QATAR INSURANCE CO. [2024] DIFC CA 008 — Procedural extension for costs assessment (07 October 2024)
The dispute originated from a Part 7 claim initiated on 14 January 2022, involving a consortium of seven major insurance entities—American International Group UK Limited (as transferee of AIG Europe Limited), Markel Syndicate Management Limited, Talbot Underwriting Limited, Berkshire Hathaway…
ACTINA FZCO v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CA 008 — Procedural adjournment and case management strategy (05 September 2018)
The Court of Appeal mandates a strategic pause in appellate proceedings to facilitate the amendment of pleadings in the underlying CFI action.
LARA BASEM MUSA KHOURY v MASHREQ BANK [2022] DIFC CA 007 — strict adherence to service time limits and deemed service rules (28 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the four-month service window under RDC 7.20 is mandatory and that deemed dates of service under RDC 9.27 are irrebuttable, effectively barring a US$6 million claim against Mashreq Bank.
RADA TRADING v WEALTH BRIDGE TRADING [2021] DIFC CA 007 — Consent order for stay of proceedings (01 August 2021)
The dispute involves Rada Trading LLC FZC, acting as the Claimant/Respondent, and two corporate entities: Wealth Bridge Trading Crude Oil and Refined Products Abroad LLC (First Defendant) and Cohenrich Energy FZE (Second Defendant/Appellant).
GRAND VALLEY GENERAL TRADING v GGICO SUNTECK [2019] DIFC CA 007 — Setting aside default judgments for improper service (11 November 2019)
The dispute arose from a deadlocked joint venture, GGICO Sunteck Limited (GSL), between Grand Valley General Trading LLC (GVGL) and Sunteck Lifestyles Limited (SLL). GVGL obtained a default judgment dissolving GSL without SLL being a party to the proceedings.
DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK [2019] DIFC CA 007 — Assessment of legal costs following appellate litigation (28 August 2019)
The assessment of costs in this matter represents the culmination of a multi-layered legal battle between Das Real Estate, owned and represented by Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid AlMuhairi, and First Abu Dhabi Bank (formerly National Bank of Abu Dhabi).
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2018] DIFC CA 007 — Amendment of costs orders following appellate judgment (03 July 2018)
The dispute centered on the clarity and completeness of the costs order issued by the Court of Appeal in its judgment dated 12 April 2018. Following the delivery of that judgment, the Respondent, National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD), identified an ambiguity or omission regarding whether the costs…
DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY v AMIT DATTANI [2019] DIFC CA 007 — Finalizing costs assessment via consent order (08 July 2019)
The litigation originated from a real estate dispute involving Damac Park Towers Company (formerly trading as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company) and four individual claimants: Mr Amit Dattani, Mr Nitin Jobanputra, Mr Masood Ur Rahman, and Mr Shemhon Iftakhar.
DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY v AMIT DATTANI [2015] DIFC CA 007 — Procedural extension of time for appellate filings (04 January 2015)
The litigation involves a complex property-related dispute originating from the Court of First Instance under claim number CFI-034-2012. The appellant, Damac Park Towers Company Limited—formerly trading as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited—is engaged in appellate proceedings…