LITT
Try LITT free
Five Real Estate Development v Reem Emirates Aluminium [2023] DIFC TCD 009: The High Cost of Procedural Overreach in Construction Disputes
How the Technology and Construction Division is hardening its stance against flawed delay analysis and procedural brinkmanship.
Ssangyong-Besix v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2020] DIFC TCD 004: The Procedural Rigour of the Technology and Construction Division
How the TCD manages complex joint venture disputes through disciplined case management and preliminary issue resolution
Brogan Middle East Scaffolding v Arabtec Construction [2021] DIFC TCD 008: The High Cost of Procedural Default in Construction Litigation
How a failure to engage with the DIFC Court’s procedural requirements led to a multi-million dirham default judgment.
Alucor v Rohr Rein Chemie [2021] DIFC TCD 001: The Limits of Clawing Back Dubai Court Judgments
Navigating the intersection of exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the finality of onshore payment orders
Bond Interior Design v Tr88house Restaurant [2023] DIFC TCD 001: The High Cost of Procedural Laxity in Construction Litigation
From a failed default judgment to a final account victory, the TCD’s latest ruling serves as a masterclass in the necessity of strict procedural compliance.
Rafid Gourmet v DIF Interior Decoration [2023] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Finality in Construction Disputes
When the DIFC Court shuts the door on post-judgment evidence, practitioners must reckon with the absolute finality of perfected orders.
Architeriors v Emirates National Investment [2024] DIFC TCD 001: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Construction Litigation
How a series of missed deadlines and procedural overreach turned a standard refurbishment dispute into a two-year appellate saga.
Five Real Estate Development v Reem Emirates Aluminium [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The Perils of Procedural Prematurity in Default Judgments
How a three-week procedural tug-of-war in the Technology and Construction Division serves as a masterclass in the strict application of the Rules of the DIFC Courts. On 11 October 2021, H.E.
Panther Real Estate v Modern Executive Systems [2022] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Abandonment and the Limits of FIDIC Termination
A deep dive into the DIFC Technology and Construction Division's rigorous approach to contract termination, liquidated damages, and the evidentiary threshold for completion costs.
Five Real Estate Development v Reem Emirates Aluminium [2023] DIFC TCD 009: The High Cost of Procedural Overreach in Construction Disputes
A multi-year construction litigation saga concludes with a AED 17 million judgment, underscoring the dangers of post-judgment re-litigation.
Narciso v Nash [2024] DIFC ARB 009: The Limits of Jurisdictional Challenges in the Shadow of Anti-Suit Injunctions
Justice Michael Black KC reaffirms the DIFC Court’s robust stance on protecting arbitral agreements against parallel proceedings in Sharjah.
Likitif v Luvaun [2022] DIFC ARB 028: The Primacy of Arbitration Clauses in Subcontractual Disputes
How the DIFC Courts reinforce the jurisdictional boundary between commercial invoices and master agreements On October 25, 2022, H.E.
Nuriel v Nuzhat [2024] DIFC ARB 018: The Clarity Test and the Limits of Contractual Discrepancy
How the DIFC Courts are reinforcing the 'Clarity Test' to prevent parallel proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Courts. On September 4, 2024, H.E.
Ledger v Leeor [2022] DIFC ARB 016: The High Bar for Anti-Suit Injunctions in Seat-Ambiguous Disputes
Justice Michael Black’s refusal to restrain Dubai Court proceedings underscores the limits of DIFC supervisory jurisdiction. On October 7, 2022, Justice Michael Black delivered a decisive blow to Ledger’s attempt to halt parallel litigation in the Dubai Court of First Instance.
Novak v Newland [2024] DIFC ARB 020: The High Threshold for Public Policy Challenges in Guarantee Enforcement
How the DIFC Courts are insulating international arbitral awards from the volatility of onshore insolvency proceedings. On 1 August 2024, H.E.
Ocie v Ortensia [2020] DIFC ARB 009: The Limits of Disclosure in Parallel Arbitral Challenges
H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi clarifies the scope of RDC 23.11 in the context of mandatory arbitral award recognition. On 19 February 2020, H.E.
Public Prosecutor v ZH Builders Pte Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGHC 227
The court established a sentencing framework for corporate offenders under the Building Control Act, adapting the framework from the Workplace Safety and Health Act, and emphasised that culpability is high where non-compliance is deliberate and involves concealment.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v TPS Construction Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 149
A claim in tort for construction defects is time-barred under s 24A(3)(a) of the Limitation Act when physical damage manifests and is reasonably discoverable, and the limitation period is not reset by subsequent recurrences of the same defect.
Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 46
A stay of enforcement of an adjudication determination under SOPA is justified only if there is clear evidence of the claimant's actual present insolvency or if there is a real risk that the money paid would not be recoverable if the dispute were resolved in the respondent's favo
Resource Piling Pte Ltd v Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 134
The court held that the subcontract for piling works was between Resource and Geocon, and that payment should be based on the actual length of piles constructed rather than design length.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v Sanchoon Builders Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 227
A breach of contract that is not repudiatory in nature does not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract. Minor breaches only entitle the innocent party to claim damages.
Mae Engineering Ltd v Dragages Singapore Pte Ltd (fka Dragages et Travaux Publics (S) Pte Ltd) [2002] SGHC 86
The court will not stay proceedings in favour of arbitration where the defendant has no genuine dispute and is merely attempting to delay payment of an indisputable claim.
Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd v Anwar Siraj and Another [2002] SGHC 139
Unconscionability is a ground for restraining a call on a performance bond, and the court will intervene at the interlocutory stage where there is a strong prima facie case of unconscionability.
New Civilbuild Pte Ltd v Guobena Sendirian Berhad and Another [2000] SGHC 47
The court clarifies the application of O 59 r 19 of the Rules of Court 1997 regarding the award of costs for multiple counsel, emphasizing that such awards are exceptional and require complexity in facts or law.