LITT
Try LITT free
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Setting aside default judgment during the Covid-19 pandemic (10 August 2020)
The litigation centers on a consultancy agreement entered into on 3 February 2017, under which Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim agreed to provide "strategic consultancy services" to Falcon Golf Management. The contract stipulated an annual fee of USD 1,000,000, payable in two equal tranches.
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for USD 2,000,000 (23 April 2020)
The dispute originated from a counterclaim filed by Falcon Golf Management against the original claimant, Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim. While the initial proceedings were initiated by Buamaim, the focus of this specific order was the Defendant’s successful application for a default judgment…
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural failure in default judgment applications (21 April 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the strict evidentiary requirements for default judgment when service is effected outside the jurisdiction, emphasizing that procedural compliance with RDC 13.22 and 13.23 is non-negotiable.
MOHAMMAD JUMA KHAMIS BUAMAIM v FALCON GOLF MANAGEMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural failure in default judgment applications (19 April 2020)
The dispute centers on a procedural application for Default Judgment filed by the Defendant, Falcon Golf Management, against the Claimant, Mohammad Juma Khamis Buamaim. While the Claimant had failed to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence within the prescribed time limits under RDC 13.4,…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Dismissal of second permission to appeal for procedural non-compliance (11 October 2023)
The Chief Justice confirms the finality of employment litigation by dismissing a second application for permission to appeal due to fatal procedural delays and lack of jurisdictional nexus.
MUSSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Dismissal of stale employment claims for lack of territorial nexus (12 May 2023)
The Court of First Instance confirms that employment claims under successive fixed-term contracts are subject to strict six-year limitation periods and requires a demonstrable physical nexus to the DIFC for the application of DIFC employment statutes.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order staying costs assessment pending trial judgment (28 April 2023)
The litigation between Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam and Expresso Telecom Group has been characterized by a complex procedural history, involving multiple interlocutory applications and evolving employment law claims.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural directions for trial preparation (06 April 2023)
The litigation, which has spanned several years, reached a critical juncture following a Pre-Trial Review held on 3 April 2023. The Court identified persistent issues regarding the Claimant’s legal representation and the technical sufficiency of his pleadings.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural extension for document production (05 December 2022)
The litigation involves a long-standing employment claim initiated by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Expresso Telecom Group. The matter has been subject to multiple procedural adjustments, as evidenced by the history of the case, including [MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural extension for filing a Reply to Case Note (22 November 2022)
The lawsuit involves a long-standing employment-related dispute between the Claimant, Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam, and the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group. The current matter before the Court of First Instance concerns the management of the evidentiary and pleading timeline, specifically the…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural framework for trial preparation (21 October 2022)
The Court has mandated that the Claimant provide granular detail regarding the legal basis and financial value of his claim to ensure the Defendant is fully appraised of the case it must meet. This requirement is intended to narrow the issues and facilitate a more efficient trial process.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Judicial refusal to strike out pleadings despite persistent non-compliance (06 April 2022)
The Court of First Instance maintains the viability of an employment claim by rejecting a strike-out application, opting instead to enforce strict compliance with Court of Appeal directions regarding procedural amendments and outstanding costs.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order for procedural extension following change of counsel (08 March 2022)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam, and the Defendant, Express Telecom Group. Following the Defendant’s filing of a Strike Out application on 23 February 2022, the Claimant underwent a transition in legal counsel, formally noted by a Notice of Change…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Retrospective application of the 2019 Employment Law (05 September 2021)
This judgment addresses the critical question of whether the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 applies retrospectively to employment contracts that expired prior to its enactment, specifically regarding the six-month limitation period under Article 10.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural consolidation and waiver of costs (10 June 2020)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Express Telecom Group. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing pleadings, the case has been characterized by a series of procedural developments regarding the scope of the claim and…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural flexibility in employment claims (15 March 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that technical pleading errors, such as citing draft legislation, do not warrant summary dismissal when the underlying claim remains viable.
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Deferral of costs assessment pending immediate judgment (21 November 2019)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Expresso Telecom Group. While the underlying merits of the claim are not detailed in this specific order, the procedural posture centers on a dispute regarding the recovery of legal costs following the filing of a Notice…
MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural adjournment pending immediate judgment (24 July 2019)
This order addresses the procedural status of CFI 015/2019, formalizing the adjournment of the Case Management Conference (CMC) pending the determination of an outstanding application for immediate judgment.
ED&F MAN CAPITAL MARKETS MENA v SAYYED HUSSAIN [2021] DIFC CFI 015 — Final settlement and dismissal of claims (03 February 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formally concluded the long-running litigation between ED&F Man Capital Markets and its former employees and competitor, RJ O’Brien, following a comprehensive settlement agreement.
ED&F MAN CAPITAL MARKETS MENA v SAYYED HUSSAIN [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order and stay of proceedings (17 December 2018)
The lawsuit, filed under case number CFI-015-2018, centered on allegations of breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, and potential solicitation of staff by former employees and a competing entity, RJ O’Brien MENA Capital Limited.
ED&F MAN CAPITAL MARKETS MENA v SAYYED HUSSAIN [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural strike-out application denied (10 December 2018)
The Claimants, ED&F Man Capital Markets Mena Limited and ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited, initiated this application on 27 November 2018, seeking the ultimate procedural sanction against the Defendants.
ED&F Man Capital Markets MENA v Sayyed Hussain [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Interlocutory rulings on document production, anti-suit injunctions, and evidence admissibility (31 October 2018)
The dispute centers on allegations that the First Defendant, Sayyed Hussain, conspired with the Second and Third Defendants to misappropriate the Claimants' business assets, including client lists and personnel, while allegedly being induced by promises of exorbitant compensation.
ED&F MAN CAPITAL MARKETS MENA v SAYYED HUSSAIN [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent order and undertakings regarding liability trial (05 April 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a consent order involving restrictive undertakings and a bifurcated trial structure to address allegations of commercial misconduct.
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Consent dismissal of long-running commercial dispute (05 May 2019)
The litigation in CFI 015/2017 represented a complex commercial conflict between the Claimant, Diversified ACL Group, and the Respondent, Diversified Drilling Holdings Limited. While the final order of 5 May 2019 does not detail the underlying substantive allegations, the case history reveals a…