LITT
Try LITT free
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Document production order (20 March 2019)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Diversified ACL Group (the Claimant) and Diversified Drilling Holdings Limited (the Defendant). The core of this specific procedural contest centered on the exchange of documents via Redfern Schedules, a standard mechanism in DIFC Court…
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural roadmap for complex commercial litigation (30 December 2018)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Diversified ACL Group (the Claimant) and Diversified Drilling Holdings Limited (the Defendant). While the underlying substantive claims remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the matter has reached a critical juncture regarding the evidentiary…
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2018] DIFC CFI 015 — Lifting a stay and permitting amended pleadings (11 September 2018)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Diversified ACL Group (the Claimant) and Diversified Drilling Holdings Limited (the Defendant). The proceedings were effectively paused in late 2017 to await the outcome of a parallel employment claim, specifically *Arthur Martin Handsel v DDIE*…
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2017] DIFC CFI 015 — Stay of proceedings pending RAK Labour Court resolution (18 October 2017)
The dispute centers on the intersection of DIFC Court litigation and an active employment claim filed in the Ras Al Khaimah (RAK) Labour Court. Diversified ACL Group, the Claimant in the DIFC proceedings, initiated an application on 24 September 2017 to pause the DIFC litigation.
DIVERSIFIED ACL GROUP v DIVERSIFIED DRILLING HOLDINGS [2017] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural bar to default judgment (23 August 2017)
The Claimant, Diversified ACL Group, initiated this request seeking a default judgment against the Respondent, Diversified Drilling Holdings, under the procedural framework of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2016] DIFC CFI 015 — Costs assessment and interim payment order (24 July 2016)
Following a successful employment claim, the DIFC Court of First Instance addresses the quantum of costs, rejecting a percentage reduction while ordering a substantial interim payment to the Claimant.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2016] DIFC CFI 015 — Final judgment and statutory penalty enforcement (29 May 2016)
This order finalizes the quantum of damages in a long-standing employment dispute, confirming the application of ongoing statutory penalties under DIFC law until full satisfaction of the judgment debt.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2016] DIFC CFI 015 — Leave to appeal granted regarding procedural order (22 May 2016)
The underlying dispute in CFI 015/2014 concerns a protracted employment claim brought by Asif Hakim Adil against Frontline Development Partners. Following a series of interlocutory skirmishes—including disputes over disclosure, security for costs, and witness evidence deadlines—the litigation…
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2016] DIFC CFI 015 — Leave to appeal granted regarding procedural order (19 May 2016)
The dispute between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners has been characterized by extensive procedural maneuvering, culminating in the order issued by Justice Roger Giles on 3 April 2016.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2016] DIFC CFI 015 — Employment termination and statutory penalty application (03 April 2016)
The dispute centered on the employment relationship between Mr. Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners, where the Claimant sought substantial compensation following his departure from the firm.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Admissibility of without prejudice materials and judicial contamination (03 November 2015)
The litigation concerns an employment dispute between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners Limited, stemming from the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 30 June 2013.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural variation of closing submission deadlines (20 July 2015)
The litigation involves a contentious employment dispute between the Claimant, Asif Hakim Adil, and the Defendant, Frontline Development Partners. This matter has been subject to multiple procedural interventions by the Court, including earlier applications regarding strike-out motions and…
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Leave to appeal granted regarding procedural order (26 March 2015)
The litigation between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners Limited has been characterized by a series of interlocutory skirmishes regarding disclosure and employment-related claims. This specific order concerns the Defendant’s attempt to challenge a ruling made by H.E.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural variation of witness evidence deadlines (19 March 2015)
The litigation between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners represents a protracted employment dispute that has necessitated multiple procedural interventions by the DIFC Court.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Security for costs application dismissed (25 February 2015)
The dispute centers on a claim brought by Asif Hakim Adil against Frontline Development Partners Limited. In the course of the litigation, the Defendant filed an Application Notice, CFI-015-2014/2, on 10 December 2014, requesting that the Court order the Claimant to provide security for the…
MR ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Disclosure order for Redfern Schedule production (27 January 2015)
The dispute between Mr Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners Limited centers on the Claimant’s demand for the production of documents deemed necessary to substantiate his claims.
ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CFI 015 — Employment dispute and strike-out application (08 October 2014)
The Court of First Instance addresses the limits of strike-out applications in employment litigation, clarifying that factual allegations underpinning a counterclaim remain viable even when specific heads of relief are abandoned.
NICHOLAS JAMES GRIFFIN v NOVAAR [2012] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for failure to respond (26 April 2012)
The litigation initiated by Nicholas James Griffin against Novaar in CFI 015/2012 centered on a monetary claim totaling US$105,000. The dispute arose from the Defendant’s failure to engage with the formal court process after the claim was served.
ATUL DHAWAN & CHARU DHAWAN v AMLAK FINANCE [2009] DIFC CFI 015 — Default judgment for failure to acknowledge service (28 July 2009)
The dispute centered on a financial claim initiated by Atul Dhawan and Charu Dhawan against Amlak Finance PJSC. The Claimants sought recovery of a principal sum totaling AED 582,024.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPAIN ELITE S.L.- BSE [2023] DIFC CFI 014 — Order of Discontinuance (04 January 2023)
The litigation initiated by Dar Al Mal Limited against Barcelona Spain Elite S.L.- BSE under case number CFI 014/2022 represented a formal attempt by the Claimant to seek judicial intervention within the DIFC jurisdiction.
DAR AL MAL v BARCELONA SPORTS ELITE SL BSE [2022] DIFC CFI 014 — Permission to appeal granted following procedural dispute (19 July 2022)
The dispute centers on a challenge to an Order issued by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 23 May 2022. Dar Al Mal Limited (the Claimant/Appellant) sought to overturn this decision, alleging that the original proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities.
UAE ENTERPRISES BUILDING MATERIAL TRADING v ARABTEC CONSTRUCTION [2021] DIFC CFI 014 — Default judgment for unpaid construction invoices (07 March 2021)
The dispute centers on the recovery of outstanding payments for building materials supplied by the Claimant to the Defendant. The Claimant sought to enforce payment for a series of invoices that remained unpaid, leading to the filing of a formal claim in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Order of Discontinuance following settlement (16 November 2020)
The litigation involved a real estate dispute between the Claimant, Hazrat Ali, and the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. While the specific underlying contractual grievances were not detailed in the final order, the case had been active since 2019 and involved multiple procedural…
HAZRAT ALI v ARLOID REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Stay of proceedings pending further developments (04 June 2020)
The litigation in CFI 014/2019 concerns a real estate dispute between the Applicant, Hazrat Ali, and the Respondent, Arloid Real Estate Development FZ LLC. While the underlying merits of the claim involve complex contractual obligations within the real estate sector, the immediate procedural focus…