LITT
Try LITT free
NS Investments v Ajay Sethi [2021] DIFC CA 010 — Setting aside default judgment for procedural non-compliance (18 November 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the mandatory nature of RDC filing requirements, ruling that a default judgment cannot stand when a defendant has effectively communicated a defense, even if formal acknowledgment of service was omitted.
MR. SALEM DWELA v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2020] DIFC CA 009 — Limitation periods for misrepresentation in real estate disputes (03 March 2021)
The dispute centers on a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) executed on 18 May 2010 between the appellant, Mr. Salem Dwela, and the respondent, Damac Park Towers Company. Mr. Dwela agreed to purchase a property unit for a total base price of AED 3,844,048, which was fully paid by July 2011.
MEYDAN GROUP v BANYAN TREE CORPORATE [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Affirming DIFC jurisdiction over domestic arbitration awards (03 November 2014)
The dispute originated from a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) dated 15 August 2007, concerning a luxury hotel property in Dubai. Banyan Tree Corporate, a Singaporean entity, sought to enforce a DIAC arbitration award against Meydan Group, a UAE-based real estate developer, following the wrongful…
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 and CA 004 — Court of Appeal dismisses multi-million Euro fraud claim following failed Cypriot litigation (25 August 2022)
The litigation involved a claim by Massun against various defendants, seeking to recover assets—specifically a yacht and property in Spain—allegedly misappropriated through fraud and conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 004 — Dismissal of claims and setting aside of freezing orders following failure of underlying Cypriot proceedings (22 July 2022)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to recover assets, specifically a yacht and a Spanish property valued at over EUR 30 million, which she alleged were the subject of a fraudulent conspiracy.
MASSUN v MOUSI [2022] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate intervention on pleading amendments and immediate judgment (22 July 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal’s decision in Massun v Mousi clarifies the strict threshold for amending pleadings and the court's willingness to grant immediate judgment when a claimant fails to substantiate a viable cause of action.
MASHREQ AL ISLAMI FINANCE COMPANY v MR BABAR REHMAN [2019] DIFC CA 002 — Appellate review of indemnity costs and payment reconciliation (02 October 2019)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of recoverable costs in Islamic finance litigation, ruling that pre-litigation expenses cannot be bundled into an indemnity costs assessment.
MARWAN LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2013] DIFC CA 003 — Employment termination, discrimination, and pension entitlement (26 November 2014)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the boundaries of marital status discrimination and confirms the absence of unfair dismissal claims under the unamended DIFC Employment Law.
MAG FINANCIAL SERVICES v THERON ENTERTAINMENT [2017] DIFC CA 006 — Tenancy termination and damages for lost profits (28 January 2018)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the interpretation of termination clauses in contracts of adhesion and sets a high evidentiary bar for claims of lost profits in commercial tenancy disputes.
LURAL v LISTRAN [2021] DIFC CA 003 — Exclusive jurisdiction and the limits of Article 5(A)(4) (10 February 2021)
The dispute centered on whether a judgment obtained in an Abu Dhabi court, in direct violation of an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring the DIFC, could constitute a "final judgment" sufficient to strip the DIFC Courts of jurisdiction under Article 5(A)(4) of the Judicial Authority Law (JAL).
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2020] DIFC CA 001 — Torrens Title and the enforceability of unregistered leases (15 October 2020)
The litigation arose from a failed 10-year lease agreement for Units R17A and R17B in Limestone House, DIFC. Vegie Bar LLC (VB) entered into a lease with the developer, Union Properties PJSC (UP), in 2011.
SAIF SAEED SULAIMAN MOHAMMAD AL MAZROUEI v BANKMED [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Appeal against immediate judgment for alleged forgery (02 January 2020)
The dispute arose from a default on a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement granted by the Respondent, Bankmed, to Fast Telecom General Trading LLC. Following the borrower's default, the bank sought to enforce personal guarantees against several defendants, including the Appellant, Saif Saeed Sulaiman…
LOVYA v LAY [2021] DIFC CA 006 — The limits of appellate intervention in interlocutory injunctions (19 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal served no functional purpose because the underlying dispute regarding the nature and presentation of the guarantee cheque was already subject to pending arbitration.
LEDGER v LEEOR [2022] DIFC CA 013 — Appeal against refusal of anti-suit injunction (26 October 2022)
The dispute arose from a construction contract for a residential project in Dubai, where Ledger (the developer) and Leeor (the contractor) found themselves in a significant financial disagreement.
LARA BASEM MUSA KHOURY v MASHREQ BANK [2022] DIFC CA 007 — procedural failure and jurisdictional limits in financial disputes (28 November 2022)
The Court of Appeal confirms that strict adherence to RDC service timelines and explicit 'opt-in' jurisdiction agreements are non-negotiable prerequisites for maintaining a claim within the DIFC Courts.
LALS HOLDINGS v EMIRATES INSURANCE COMPANY [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Insurance policy interpretation regarding pandemic-related business interruption (03 July 2024)
The dispute centered on the refusal of Emirates Insurance Company (EIC) to indemnify the LALS Group for business interruption losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. LALS, a retail conglomerate operating across the GCC, sought coverage under Property All Risk and Business Interruption…
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Costs order variation and the limits of RDC 4.2(1) (24 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of its power to extend time for compliance with orders and affirms the "costs follow the event" principle despite prior unreasoned court practices.
LAKHAN v LAMIA [2021] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the threshold for automatic stays under the Joint Judicial Committee Decree (08 April 2021)
The dispute originated from a sub-contract for landscaping and swimming pool installation at the Lisan project, initially involving the Defendant (Lakhan), a contractor (Labian), and the Claimant (Lamia).
LAHELA v LAMEEZ [2020] DIFC CA 007 — The limits of the Riyadh Convention in DIFC enforcement proceedings (09 May 2021)
The dispute centered on the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in a DIFC-seated arbitration. Lameez, the respondent, sought to enforce an award against Lahela, a company registered in Iraq, for the sum of USD 4,622,589.47 plus interest and costs.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Procedural dismissal for non-compliance (29 November 2020)
The dispute centered on an application filed by King and Wood Mallesons (Mena) LLP (the Appellant) on 18 August 2020, directed at the Respondent, Meydan Group LLC. While the underlying litigation involves a complex history between the parties and Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Limited, this specific…
Bankmed (SAL) v Ibrahim Saif Hormodi [2019] DIFC CA 006 — Dismissal of appeal against default judgment (11 February 2020)
The litigation arose from a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement dated 22 December 2015, involving Bankmed (SAL) as the lender and Fast Telecom General Trading LLC, along with its former shareholder Ibrahim Saif Hormodi, as parties providing security.
PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM v AL-MOJIL [2016] DIFC CA 003 — Confirmation of the Spiliada doctrine for forum non conveniens (23 August 2016)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the procedural nature of forum non conveniens in the DIFC, formally adopting the English Spiliada test to determine the appropriateness of the forum.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Retrospective application of limitation periods under the 2019 Employment Law (20 December 2021)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Appellant’s employment with Expresso Telecom Group, a company incorporated within the DIFC, following the conclusion of three consecutive fixed-term contracts that ended on 31 July 2014.
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS v MEYDAN GROUP [2017] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal regarding the cessation of legal representation (20 March 2017)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of the 'slip rule' and the duration of solicitor authority following unsuccessful jurisdictional challenges.