LITT
Try LITT free
BARCLAYS BANK v HAMAD SUHAIL O AL KHAILI [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the limits of Article 5(A)(4) (10 February 2021)
The litigation arose from a banking relationship between Barclays Bank PLC and the Respondents, His Excellency Hamad Suhail. O. Al Khaili and Mr. Ibrahim Daoud Jaffal. The Respondents had initiated proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Courts concerning investment losses, despite the existence of a…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v HIS EXCELLENCY HAMAD SUHAIL. O. AL KHAILI [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Affirming exclusive jurisdiction over parallel proceedings (03 February 2021)
The dispute centered on the competing jurisdictional claims between the DIFC Courts and the Abu Dhabi Courts regarding banking facilities provided by Barclays Bank PLC to His Excellency Hamad Suhail. O. Al Khaili and Mr. Ibrahim Daoud Jaffal.
Bankmed v Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas [2019] DIFC CA 001 — The limits of appealing judicial reasoning (13 June 2019)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies that litigants cannot use the appellate process to challenge obiter dicta or judicial reasoning when the underlying order is in their favor.
AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY v EMIRATES NBD BANK [2020] DIFC CA 006 — Appellate procedural order (19 October 2020)
The dispute centers on an interlocutory application filed by the Appellant, Al Rihab Real Estate Company, on 14 October 2020, within the broader appellate proceedings against the Respondent, Emirates NBD Bank.
EMIRATES NBD BANK v AL RIHAB REAL ESTATE COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 006 — Foreclosure and procedural fairness in the DIFC (05 April 2021)
The dispute centers on a foreclosure order granted to Emirates NBD Bank (ENBD) over a significant undeveloped parcel of land (Plot PA-05) within the DIFC. Al Rihab Real Estate Company, a member of the Al Jaber Group, defaulted on a facility originally granted in 2006, which was later restructured…
AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v HORIZON ENERGY [2023] DIFC CA 001 — The dismissal of an anti-suit injunction appeal (27 April 2023)
The underlying dispute originated from an application filed by Al Buhaira National Insurance Company (the Appellant) seeking an anti-suit injunction against Horizon Energy LLC (the Respondent).
TRAFIGURA PTE LTD v MR PRATEEK GUPTA [2025] DIFC CA 001 — The Court of Appeal confirms the DIFC’s power to grant interim relief in support of foreign proceedings (22 September 2025)
The litigation arises from a massive commodities trading dispute involving claims of deceit, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The claimants, Trafigura PTE Ltd and Trafigura India PTV Ltd, initiated proceedings against Mr. Prateek Gupta and Mrs.
SHAUN GREGORY MORGAN v THE REGISTRAR OF THE DIFC COURTS [2024] DIFC CA 004 AND CA 005 — Professional conduct and integrity sanctions (17 September 2024)
The Court of Appeal affirms the removal of a practitioner and his firm from the DIFC register following findings of fraud and reckless misrepresentation regarding criminal history.
Sandra Holding v Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Costs allocation following the discharge of worldwide freezing orders (02 November 2023)
The core of this dispute concerns the appropriate allocation of costs following the successful appeal by Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi against worldwide freezing orders originally granted by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in November 2021.
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — The limits of DIFC Court jurisdiction over worldwide freezing orders (06 September 2023)
The dispute originated from a long-standing family conflict between Nuri Musaed Al Saleh and his brother, Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, concerning the management and shareholding of Universal Enterprises Limited (UEL), a Cayman Islands entity.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 008 — Clarifying the scope of compensation for breaches of the Financial Services Prohibition (22 March 2018)
The lawsuit originated from the Respondents' investment in unsuitable financial products, specifically "yield enhanced" notes, which were facilitated by Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank J. Safra Sarasin Limited.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 008 — Appellate review of quantum and statutory compensation under the Regulatory Law (29 January 2017)
The dispute arose from the Respondents' investment in leveraged yield-enhanced notes, which the Court previously determined were sold in breach of the Financial Services Prohibition under Article 41 of the DIFC Regulatory Law.
Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Regulatory liability for structured financial product losses (03 March 2016)
The dispute arose from the purchase of structured financial products, known as "the Notes," by three wealthy Kuwaiti nationals—Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—between 2007 and 2008.
NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2021] DIFC CA 012 — Appellate confirmation of time-bar dismissal (09 February 2023)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms the dismissal of professional negligence claims against auditors, solidifying the application of foreign limitation periods in complex cross-border litigation.
NEST INVESTMENT HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Appellate clarification on joinder and jurisdictional gateways (13 March 2019)
The Court of Appeal resolves a critical procedural impasse, confirming that the DIFC Rules of Court function as "DIFC Regulations" to facilitate the joinder of parties under RDC 20.7(2) even where independent jurisdictional gateways are absent.
NADIL v NAMEER [2025] DIFC CA 001 — Court of Appeal affirms interim freezing order jurisdiction (13 June 2025)
The dispute arises from allegations of deceit, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and unjust enrichment brought by the Appellants, Nadil and Noshaba, against the Respondents, Nameer and Naseema.
NADIL v NAMEER [2025] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate intervention on freezing injunctions and jurisdictional uncertainty (26 April 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal sets aside a Court of First Instance order dismissing a freezing injunction application, establishing a bifurcated procedural path to resolve jurisdictional challenges while maintaining the privacy of sensitive proceedings.
Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 003 — jurisdictional retrospectivity and the application of Law No. 16 of 2011 (05 January 2012)
The lawsuit centers on a complex financial dispute involving three claimants—Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and two corporate respondents: Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited (the DIFC-based subsidiary) and Bank…
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying regulatory liability and pleading standards (26 January 2011)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the independence of Article 94 Regulatory Law claims and establishes the legitimacy of cross-referenced pleading techniques in complex financial litigation.
Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the scope of Article 94 Regulatory Law and security for costs (23 January 2011)
The dispute centers on a claim for nearly US$75 million brought by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate review of pleading standards and regulatory liability (09 November 2010)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for pleading investment-related claims and confirms that Article 94 of the Regulatory Law provides a direct, independent cause of action for private litigants.
MELODY v MELANCE [2020] DIFC CA 010 — Appeal against costs assessment following interim injunction (11 May 2021)
The litigation arose from a shareholder dispute involving the ownership of 75 million new shares issued by MYRA. Melance claimed a beneficial interest in 39.5% of these shares (the "Disputed Shares"), while the Appellants, Melody and Molly (collectively "MELODY"), maintained that Melance’s option…
LAAMIH v LATEEF [2022] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal struck out for non-appearance (09 May 2022)
The lawsuit originated from an underlying order issued by Justice Wayne Martin on 13 December 2021. Following this order, the Appellants, Laamih, Labib, and Laeek, successfully sought permission to appeal, which was granted by Justice Wayne Martin on 3 February 2022.
Laabika v Ladu Capital Investments [2021] DIFC CA 008 — Jurisdiction of 'Courts of Dubai' clauses (07 September 2021)
The dispute arose from a loan agreement executed on 30 September 2016, wherein the Appellants, Laabika and Labhdi, provided a principal sum of €2,000,000 to the First Respondent, Ladu Capital Investments.