LITT
Try LITT free
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2015] DIFC CA 007 — Appellate confirmation of termination rights for incomplete real estate units (10 November 2015)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that developers cannot force completion on purchasers when common areas remain unsafe or essential operational infrastructure is missing, reinforcing strict standards for "readiness for occupation" under DIFC Contract Law.
TR88HOUSE RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER v BOND INTERIOR DESIGN [2024] DIFC CA 006 — Consent order correcting double-counted retentions (21 August 2024)
The litigation centered on a construction contract dispute where the primary point of contention, following the initial judgment by Justice Wayne Martin, involved the calculation of retentions.
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2021] DIFC CA 006/2020 — Registrar clarifies requirements for payment of costs on account (23 December 2021)
The dispute centered on the Defendant’s (Emirates NBD Bank) attempt to secure an order for payment of costs on account following the conclusion of appellate proceedings. Having succeeded in the Court of Appeal, the Bank sought to recover its legal costs, but the Registrar found the documentation…
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2021] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate cost allocation for security applications (01 November 2021)
The litigation between Al Rihab Real Estate Company and Emirates NBD Bank centers on a high-stakes banking and real estate dispute that reached the Court of Appeal under reference CA 006/2020.
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2021] DIFC CA 006 — Procedural order regarding withdrawal of legal representation (05 August 2021)
The litigation involves an appeal brought by Al Rihab Real Estate Company against Emirates NBD Bank. While the underlying substantive dispute remains active, the immediate procedural matter concerned the status of the Appellant’s legal counsel.
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2022] DIFC CA 006 — release of escrowed security funds (02 March 2022)
The dispute centered on the status of funds held by the DIFC Courts as security during the pendency of appeal proceedings under case number CA 006/2020. Al Rihab Real Estate Company, acting as the Appellant, had previously been required to transfer a substantial sum into the DIFC Courts’ Escrow…
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2022] DIFC CA 006 — Interim payment of costs order (28 January 2022)
The dispute centered on the Respondent’s request for an interim payment following the conclusion of proceedings in CA 006/2020. Having submitted a Draft Bill of Costs on 26 January 2022, Emirates NBD Bank PJSC sought an immediate payment on account from the Appellant, Al Rihab Real Estate Company…
MAG FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC v THERON ENTERTAINMENT LLC [2019] DIFC CA 006 — Compelling document production via Redfern Schedule (08 April 2019)
This order clarifies the procedural threshold for document production in the DIFC Court of Appeal, enforcing strict compliance with Redfern Schedule obligations under RDC 28.16.
MAG Financial Services v Theron Entertainment [2018] DIFC CA 006 — Ruling on costs following appeal (07 May 2018)
The dispute centered on a tenancy contract and subsequent claims for damages arising from delays in obtaining a change of use for the premises. Theron Entertainment LLC initially sought significant damages, which the Court noted were substantial in the context of the overall litigation.
FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS v ASIF HAKIM ADIL [2016] DIFC CA 006 — Court of Appeal rejects security for costs application (31 October 2016)
The litigation between Frontline Development Partners Limited and Asif Hakim Adil concerns a procedural battle within the appellate framework of the DIFC Courts. While the underlying substantive claim remains distinct, this specific interlocutory dispute centered on the Respondent’s attempt to…
TVM Capital Mena v Ali Akbar Hashemi [2014] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate adjustment of trial costs (25 December 2014)
The litigation between TVM Capital Mena Limited and Ali Akbar Hashemi originated in the Court of First Instance under claim number CFI 045/2012. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim were addressed in the order of Justice Roger Giles dated 22 May 2014, the subsequent appeal focused…
TVM CAPITAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2015] DIFC CA 006 — Consent order for costs settlement (09 March 2015)
The litigation between TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited and Ali Akbar Hashemi involved a complex dispute that originated in the Court of First Instance under CFI-045-2012. Following a judgment delivered by Justice Roger Giles on 22 May 2014, the Claimant was awarded costs subject to specific…
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v AHMED ZAKI BEYDOUN [2014] DIFC CA 006 — Reopening an appeal due to judicial oversight (26 March 2014)
The dispute centered on the validity of a termination notice issued by the Respondent, Ahmed Zaki Beydoun, concerning a residential apartment in a DIFC development. The Appellant, Daman Real Estate Capital Partners, had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the Respondent.
AHMED ZAKI BEYDOUN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CA 006 — procedural management of an application to re-open an appeal (12 March 2014)
The litigation involves a real estate dispute between the Claimant, Ahmed Zaki Beydoun, and the Respondents, Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited and Asteco Property Management LLC.
LXT Real Estate Broker v SIR Real Estate [2026] DIFC CA 005 — Appellate intervention on security for costs (21 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal sets aside a restrictive security for costs order, ruling that the CFI erred in principle by treating litigation funding as a categorical discount and failing to properly weigh prejudice to the defendant.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2026] DIFC CA 005 — Security for costs appellate review (13 January 2026)
The litigation centers on a dispute between LXT Real Estate Broker L.L.C (the Claimant) and SIR Real Estate LLC (the Defendant), originating in the Court of First Instance (CFI-073-2024).
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CA 005 — Administrative closure of appellate proceedings (06 November 2023)
The DIFC Court of Appeal formalizes the termination of appellate proceedings following the resolution of underlying jurisdictional and substantive issues in the Court of First Instance.
THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v Mr ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2022] DIFC CA 005/2022 — Court of Appeal costs determination (30 November 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the application of judicial discretion in cost-shifting, awarding two-thirds of appeal costs while emphasizing the relevance of party conduct in the final assessment.
MEYDAN GROUP v BANYAN TREE [2015] DIFC CA 005 — Default costs assessment following appellate litigation (26 February 2015)
The dispute before the Court of Appeal in CA 005/2014 concerned the finalization of costs following a substantive judgment delivered on 3 November 2014. After the conclusion of the appellate proceedings, Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd, as the successful party, sought to recover its legal expenses.
KENNETH DAVID ROHAN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CA 005/2013 — Final determination on appellate costs (17 December 2014)
The litigation involved a complex real estate dispute between Kenneth David Rohan, Andrew James Mostyn Pugh, Michelle Gemma Mostyn Pugh, Stuart James Cox, and Ahmed Zaki Beydoun against Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited and Asteco Property Management LLC.
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v KENNETH DAVID ROHAN [2013] DIFC CA 005 — Court of Appeal rejects conditional strike-out of appeal (15 December 2013)
The dispute arises from a real estate investment matter where Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited (the Appellant) sought to challenge a lower court judgment. Following the initial ruling, the Respondents—Kenneth David Rohan, Andrew James Mostyn Pugh, Michelle Gemma Mostyn Pugh, and Stuart…
KENNETH DAVID ROHAN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Reopening an appeal due to procedural oversight (24 April 2014)
The DIFC Court of Appeal grants permission to reopen an appeal, ensuring that the Appellant’s arguments regarding Force Majeure and contractual termination are fully adjudicated following a procedural failure to address key grounds.
ORAN v OVED [2025] DIFC CA 004 — The limits of DIFC injunctive power (28 October 2025)
The lawsuit centers on a contractual dispute arising from air ambulance services provided by Oved, a UK-incorporated company, to the late Mr Oran and his agent, Mr Oaken. Following a disagreement over substantial fees paid for the transport of the late Mr Oran’s wife from Switzerland to South…
MR ORAN v OVED [2025] DIFC CA 004 — Assessment of costs following successful jurisdictional challenge (08 December 2025)
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge an anti-suit injunction and uphold the Appellants' jurisdictional objection, H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin conducted an immediate assessment of costs, awarding the Appellants AED 720,000.