LITT
Try LITT free
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Document production and privilege ruling (20 September 2017)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammed Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, and the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Amended case management order following statement of case amendments (22 May 2017)
The litigation involves claims brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. While the underlying merits concern professional services rendered by the defendant, the specific procedural posture of…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD BIN ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Case Management Order (16 April 2017)
The litigation involves a professional negligence claim brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammed Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Compelling production of the Saudi Capital Markets Authority report (05 February 2017)
The dispute centers on a request for the production of a specific forensic or advisory report that sits at the heart of the evidentiary record. The Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, initiated an application on 31 January 2017 to force the…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural extension by consent (24 November 2016)
The litigation involves two claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, who initiated proceedings against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited under case number CFI-020-2015.
Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Leave to appeal granted (18 February 2016)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bil Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, and the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The matter reached a significant procedural impasse following an order issued by H.E.
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Jurisdiction over DIFC-registered entities in cross-border tort claims (03 January 2016)
The dispute arises from a consultancy engagement involving the Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG), a construction firm specializing in the oil and gas sector. The Claimants, Saudi nationals and founding shareholders of MMG, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East)…
MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural adjournment by consent (04 October 2015)
The litigation involves Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil as Claimants against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The dispute reached a procedural juncture regarding the timeline for the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-020-2015/1.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds (04 July 2018)
The Court of First Instance enters judgment against a former executive for systematic fraud and the misappropriation of corporate funds, reinforcing the strict application of fiduciary duties and the Court's intolerance for procedural obstruction.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Adjournment denied for lack of medical evidence (02 July 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance rejects a last-minute application for trial adjournment, underscoring the necessity of robust, contemporary medical evidence when a litigant claims incapacity to participate in proceedings.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management and refusal of trial adjournment (13 June 2018)
The dispute between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh involves complex allegations and has been subject to extensive procedural history within the DIFC Courts. By June 2018, the matter had reached a critical juncture with a Progress Monitoring Hearing (PMH) scheduled for 7 June 2018.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Reasons for the dismissal of procedural applications (07 February 2018)
The litigation concerns a long-standing dispute involving allegations of fraud and dishonesty brought by GFH Capital Limited against David Lawrence Haigh. The case has a "tortuous history" dating back to its commencement on 22 May 2014.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2018] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural discipline and the containment of vexatious applications (11 January 2018)
The litigation between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh has been characterized by a series of aggressive procedural maneuvers by the Defendant. In the lead-up to the hearing on 13 and 14 December 2017, Mr.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management of complex counterclaims and joinder applications (25 November 2017)
In the proceedings of CFI-020-2014, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, submitted a document titled “Amended Defence and Counterclaim” and a supporting witness statement without properly serving them on the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited, or adhering to the standard procedural requirements of the…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural directions for joinder of parties (17 October 2017)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke issues an amended procedural order establishing a strict evidentiary timetable for the Defendant’s application to add new parties to the long-running CFI 020/2014 litigation.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural directions on adding parties (11 October 2017)
The litigation between GFH Capital Limited and David Lawrence Haigh has been characterized by extensive procedural complexity and multiple interlocutory skirmishes. In this specific instance, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought to expand the scope of the existing proceedings by filing an…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural limitations on litigant-in-person applications and Pro Bono funding (16 May 2017)
In the underlying litigation, the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought various forms of relief, including a financial order against the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited. Specifically, the Defendant requested that the Court compel the Claimant to pay GBP 28,800 to the Priory Hospital, alleging that…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Granting leave to appeal despite procedural delays (02 March 2017)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its discretion to permit an out-of-time appeal, balancing procedural strictness against the necessity of ensuring a fair hearing in a matter of significant public interest.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Immediate judgment and indemnity costs for misappropriation (10 November 2016)
The dispute centered on the actions of the Defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, who was found to have misappropriated significant sums of money from the Claimant, GFH Capital Limited. The litigation involved allegations of fraud and a breach of trust, with the Claimant seeking recovery of funds that…
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Pro Bono funding and procedural management of multiple appeals (10 August 2016)
The dispute centered on the Appellant’s request for financial assistance to engage legal counsel to manage four pending appeals and an Immediate Judgment application against GFH Capital Limited.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural management of recusal, fee waivers, and legal representation (31 August 2015)
Justice Sir David Steel issues a series of procedural directions addressing the Defendant’s requests for recusal and fee waivers while formalizing the entry of new legal counsel into the ongoing litigation.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial restraint in freezing order variations (28 June 2015)
The lawsuit concerns a high-stakes fraud claim brought by GFH Capital Limited against David Lawrence Haigh. The dispute centers on allegations of breach of trust and dishonesty, with the Claimant asserting a proprietary interest in the disputed monies.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Judicial control over frozen assets for legal expenses (14 May 2015)
This order addresses the limits of a defendant’s entitlement to access frozen assets for legal defense costs, emphasizing the requirement for transparency and proportionality in the face of alleged fraud.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Refusal to vary freezing order for legal fees (03 May 2015)
The defendant, David Lawrence Haigh, sought a variation of the freezing order originally granted by Deputy Chief Justice Sir John Chadwick on 18 June 2014. The application aimed to secure the release of £550,000 from frozen funds to settle outstanding legal fees and disbursements.