LITT
Try LITT free
AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v IDBI BANK [2021] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural timeline adjustment for appellate skeleton arguments (21 April 2021)
The dispute concerns the appellate timeline for the submission of supplementary skeleton arguments following the Respondent’s filing of a Notice and Skeleton Argument on 28 March 2021.
AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v IDBI BANK [2021] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural timeline adjustment for appellate skeleton arguments (12 April 2021)
The dispute concerns an appeal brought by Amira C Foods International DMCC and Karan A Chanana against IDBI Bank Limited. The matter before the Court of Appeal involves the management of complex appellate filings, specifically the exchange of supplementary skeleton arguments.
DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CA 004 — Clarifying the trigger for enforcement fees (02 June 2016)
The dispute arose from enforcement proceedings (ENF-030-2015) initiated by National Bonds Corporation against Deyaar Development following two earlier judgments in CFI-014-2010, which collectively ordered Deyaar to pay over AED 227 million.
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural directions on employment gratuity and damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute centers on the employment relationship between Hana Al Herz and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority. The litigation concerns the Appellant’s entitlement to end-of-service gratuity and potential damages arising from an alleged breach of Article 56 of the DIFC Employment…
SHAHAB HAIDER v ERNST & YOUNG MIDDLE EAST [2012] DIFC CA 004 — Court of Appeal order for insolvency disclosure (24 January 2012)
The dispute centered on the Liquidator’s efforts to gather information critical to the administration of Orion Holding Overseas Limited (in liquidation). Shahab Haider, acting in his capacity as Liquidator, sought to compel Ernst & Young Middle East (E&Y) to produce a wide array of records…
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural consolidation of costs and payment return applications (18 October 2023)
The litigation involves a complex family and corporate dispute between Sandra Holding Ltd and Nuri Musaed Al Saleh (the Claimants/Respondents) and Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi (the Defendants/Appellants).
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural scheduling for appellate costs (12 October 2023)
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute between Sandra Holding Ltd and Nuri Musaed Al Saleh (as Claimants/Respondents) and Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi (as Defendants/Appellants).
TATIANA MIKHAVILOVNA AKHMEDOVA v FARKHAD TEIMUR OGLY AKHMEDOV [2018] DIFC CA 003 — jurisdictional limits on freezing injunctions (28 May 2018)
The litigation centers on a complex enforcement effort initiated by Tatiana Mikhavilovna Akhmedova against her former spouse, Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov, and a Liechtenstein-incorporated entity, Straight Establishment.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions for appellate filings (03 April 2017)
The litigation involves a commercial disagreement between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC, which has escalated to the appellate level within the DIFC Courts.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (26 April 2015)
This order addresses the procedural management of appellate timelines within the DIFC Court of Appeal, specifically concerning the deadline for filing a Respondents’ Notice in a complex banking dispute.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Synchronizing appellate procedural timelines (23 March 2015)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai (the Claimants) and the two defendants, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd.
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2014] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions on employment gratuity and damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute centers on the appellant, Marwan Ahmad Lutfi, and his claims against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) regarding his entitlements following the termination of his employment.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002 — Court of Appeal clarifies cost awards in moot enforcement appeals (25 June 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for recovering costs in academic appeals, confirming that the "tolerably clear" test applies when supervening events render the underlying dispute moot.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002/2025 — Assessment of excessive appeal costs (09 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to slash a disproportionate costs claim following the mootness of an appeal.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Costs allocation following retrial order (22 August 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the methodology for apportioning costs in complex litigation where a retrial is ordered, favoring percentage-based allocations over issue-based assessments.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC COURT OF APPEAL CA 002/2023 — Procedural management of cost submissions (25 July 2024)
The lawsuit involves a complex appellate matter between Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE against Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner. Following the Court of Appeal’s substantive judgment delivered on 13 June 2024, the court directed the parties to…
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CA 002 — procedural management of appellate filings (23 June 2022)
The litigation concerns an appeal brought by Expresso Telecom Group against Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla. Following an initial application for permission to appeal, the parties engaged in a series of filings, including a Second Permission Application submitted by the appellant on 14 January 2022 and a…
FIVE RIVER PROPERTIES v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CA 002 — Consent order dismissing appeal (14 December 2009)
The litigation involved a complex commercial disagreement between the Appellants, Five River Properties LLC and Renaissance Holdings and Developers FZE, and the Respondents, Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE.
NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION v TAALEEM [2012] DIFC CA 001/2011 — Rectification of clerical errors in Court of Appeal judgments (11 March 2012)
The dispute originated from an underlying appeal, CA 001/2011, involving National Bonds Corporation PJSC as the Appellant and Taaleem PJSC and Deyaar Development PJSC as the Respondents.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001/2010 — Procedural directions for re-amending pleadings (21 September 2010)
The litigation involves Rafed Abden Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifa against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited. The dispute centers on allegations of contract breach, misrepresentation, and negligence arising from the banking relationship.
AMARJEET SINGH DHIR v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT LIMITED AND LINARUS FZE [2009] DIFC CA 001 — Consent order dismissing appeal (14 December 2009)
The litigation in CA 001/2009 involved a complex multi-party dispute centered on property investment interests within the DIFC jurisdiction. The proceedings pitted Amarjeet Singh Dhir and Waterfront Property Investment Limited, acting as the Appellants, against Linarus FZE, the Respondent.
RAUL SILVA v UNITED INVESTMENT BANK [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Finality of litigation and the high threshold for reopening appeals (13 November 2014)
The underlying litigation concerned the termination of Raul Silva’s employment by United Investment Bank. A central point of contention at trial was whether an event held at the Copacabana Palace Hotel was a personal function or a corporate event.
TATIANA MIKHAILOVNA AKHMEDOVA v FARKHAD TEIMUR OGLY AKHMEDOV [2018] DIFC CA 003 — Jurisdiction over non-parties in foreign judgment enforcement (19 June 2018)
The litigation stems from the enforcement of a substantial English High Court Financial Remedy Order against Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov. Following divorce proceedings, the English court awarded the Claimant, Tatiana Mikhailovna Akhmedova, ancillary relief totaling GBP 453,576,152.
INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CA 002 — Enforceability of anti-set-off clauses in banking facilities (17 July 2018)
The DIFC Court of Appeal confirms that anti-set-off clauses are robustly enforceable under UAE law, precluding borrowers from utilizing unquantified cross-claims to defeat immediate judgment applications.