LITT
Try LITT free
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Contribution claims post-settlement (23 April 2014)
The litigation originated from a substantial commercial dispute involving the supply of pipes, where the Claimant, Corinth Pipeworks S.A., sought recovery of approximately US$24 million.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Costs order following procedural amendments (23 April 2014)
The dispute, which has spanned several years, involves complex litigation between Corinth Pipeworks S.A. and Barclays Bank PLC, with the latter acting as a Part 21 Claimant against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS v BARCLAYS BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Interim payment of costs order (04 March 2015)
The dispute in CFI 024/2010 involved a complex multi-party litigation initiated by Corinth Pipeworks S.A. against Barclays Bank, which subsequently brought Part 21 proceedings against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Referral for contempt proceedings (27 April 2014)
The Court of First Instance exercises its inherent power to refer evidence of potential contempt to the Dubai Attorney General following the submission of irregular correspondence by the Part 21 Defendants.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural orders on service and legal representation (23 April 2014)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently brought Part 21 claims against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order staying proceedings (14 April 2014)
The litigation between Corinth Pipeworks SA and Barclays Bank PLC involved a complex commercial dispute that reached the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 024/2010. While the underlying factual allegations and the specific quantum of the claim remained confidential due to the…
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations in Part 21 proceedings (16 December 2013)
The litigation involves a complex dispute where Corinth Pipeworks SA (the Claimant) and Barclays Bank PLC (the Defendant) sought extensive document production from the Part 21 Defendants, namely Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — procedural recalibration of complex multi-party litigation (11 September 2013)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute initiated by Corinth Pipeworks SA against Barclays Bank PLC. The matter expanded significantly when Barclays introduced a Part 21 claim against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — dismissal of time extension for appeal notices (11 August 2013)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a complex multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently involved Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar as Defendants to a Part 21 claim.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations and procedural compliance (16 July 2013)
The dispute centers on a wide-ranging discovery process initiated by both parties in the context of a banking claim. Corinth Pipeworks SA sought extensive documentation from Barclays Bank PLC, leading to a series of specific Requests to Produce that required judicial intervention to resolve.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural expansion of commercial litigation (25 March 2013)
This Case Management Order details the procedural expansion of a long-running banking dispute, granting the Defendant leave to join third parties and establishing a rigorous timetable for disclosure and expert evidence leading to a 2013 trial.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2011] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order for lack of jurisdiction (06 April 2011)
The litigation involved a dispute between the Claimant, Corinth Pipeworks S.A., and the Defendant, Barclays Bank PLC. The proceedings were initiated via a Claim Form filed on 29 September 2010.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAY'S BANK PLC [2010] DIFC CFI 024 — Jurisdiction over non-DIFC activities of Centre Establishments (09 February 2011)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the status of a "Centre Establishment" does not grant the Court universal jurisdiction over all global activities of an international corporation, limiting it instead to disputes connected with the entity's DIFC-authorized business.