LITT
Try LITT free
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2026] DIFC CFI 073 — Summary assessment of costs following failed strike-out (13 February 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reaffirms its preference for immediate summary assessment of costs, ordering the Defendant to pay AED 803,187.03 after a failed attempt to strike out the Claimant’s real estate brokerage claim.
LXT Real Estate Broker v SIR Real Estate [2026] DIFC CFI 073 — Clarifying the threshold for Henderson abuse in the DIFC (20 January 2026)
The dispute centers on a commercial relationship established by a "Partnership and Services Agreement" dated 14 June 2020. LXT Real Estate Broker L.L.C (LXT) and SIR Real Estate LLC (SIR) entered into an arrangement to combine their luxury real estate brokerage businesses under the co-branded name…
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2026] DIFC CFI 073 — Permission to appeal costs order rejected (15 January 2026)
The underlying dispute arose from a Security for Costs application filed by the Defendant, SIR Real Estate L.L.C, against the Claimant, LXT Real Estate Broker L.L.C. The Defendant sought a significant amount of security, but the Court ultimately granted a quantum that was substantially lower than…
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2025] DIFC CFI 073 — Permission to appeal security for costs order (25 August 2025)
The Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts clarifies the threshold for appellate intervention regarding the scope of security for costs, specifically addressing whether a court can limit security to a "natural barrier" such as a strike-out application.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2025] DIFC CFI 073 — No order as to costs following security for costs application (02 July 2025)
The litigation concerns a substantial real estate claim valued at over AED 405 million. The Defendant, SIR Real Estate LLC, initiated a Security for Costs Application seeking USD 1,750,000 to protect its position.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2025] DIFC CFI 073 — Security for costs in the presence of opaque litigation funding (26 March 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for security for costs where a claimant relies on third-party funding, emphasizing that financial opacity regarding a funder justifies judicial intervention.
LXT REAL ESTATE BROKER v SIR REAL ESTATE [2025] DIFC CFI 073 — Procedural sequencing of security for costs (15 January 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the priority of procedural applications, ruling that concerns regarding a claimant’s financial standing necessitate the early determination of security for costs, even when a strike-out application is pending.