LITT
Try LITT free
MOHAMMED USMAN SALEEM v OASIS CRESCENT CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural directions for Small Claims Tribunal appeal (05 January 2009)
The litigation involves a dispute between Mohammed Usman Saleem and Oasis Crescent Capital (DIFC) Limited, originating from an earlier matter adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), specifically SCT E 030/2008.
TAKUYA HONDA v SHINGO OKAMOTO [2025] DIFC CFI 008 — Conditional set aside of default judgment (27 May 2025)
The litigation arises from a claim filed by Takuya Honda on 4 February 2025, alleging negligence and fraud against the two respondents. The dispute centers on investment dealings governed by an Investment Agreement dated 7 August 2022 and a subsequent Restated Agreement dated 23 November 2023.
NED v NASTASIA [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Partial allowance of appeal regarding delay-related damages (09 July 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the recoverability of non-pecuniary damages for stress in residential renovation disputes while setting aside an erroneous award for accommodation costs.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Costs allocation following dismissal of time-barred employment claims (19 April 2024)
The litigation arose from the summary termination of Faizal Babu Moorkath by Expresso Telecom Group Ltd on 23 March 2022. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant, alongside the company’s CEO, was responsible for the "squandering and wasting" of USD 2 million through two specific transactions in…
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Employment limitation periods and the strict application of the six-month bar (14 March 2024)
The Court of First Instance confirms that the six-month limitation period for employment claims under the DIFC Employment Law 2019 is a jurisdictional threshold that cannot be bypassed, resulting in the dismissal of a multi-million AED claim.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2024] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for trial preparation (17 January 2024)
The litigation involves a dispute between Faizal Babu Moorkath, acting as Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim, and Expresso Telecom Group, acting as Defendant and Claimant in Counterclaim. The matter is currently before the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 008/2023.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Document production and disclosure obligations (11 December 2023)
The litigation concerns an employment dispute between Faizal Babu Moorkath and Expresso Telecom Group Ltd, filed under case number CFI 008/2023. The core of the dispute involves the Claimant’s attempt to secure comprehensive disclosure of internal documents relevant to his dismissal.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Retrospective procedural relief for late filings (01 May 2023)
The dispute in CFI 008/2023 centers on a procedural impasse regarding the timeline for the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group, to formalize its position in the litigation. Having been served with the claim, the Defendant failed to file its Defence and Counterclaim within the timeframe prescribed by…
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Consent order for procedural extension (23 February 2023)
The litigation involves a Part 7 claim initiated by Faizal Babu Moorkath against Expresso Telecom Group. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Claim Form on 26 January 2023, followed by the service of the Particulars of Claim on 31 January 2023.
FAIZAL BABU MOORKATH v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2023] DIFC CFI 008 — Pre-Trial Review vacation by consent (03 January 2023)
A procedural order confirming the vacation of a scheduled Pre-Trial Review following successful adherence to the Case Management Conference timetable by both parties.
KPMG LLP v THE DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY [2022] DIFC CFI 008 CFI 007 — Regulatory transparency and the open justice principle (29 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the Financial Markets Tribunal’s refusal to grant private hearings or suppress the publication of regulatory Decision Notices, reinforcing the primacy of open justice in financial services oversight.
LPA v RESOIL CARIBBEAN [2021] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for USD 300,000 (07 June 2021)
The dispute concerns a claim for a liquidated sum brought by LPA (Middle East) Ltd against Resoil Caribbean SRL. The claimant initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance to recover a debt totaling USD 300,000.
LPA v RESOIL CARIBBEAN [2021] DIFC CFI 008 — Denial of default judgment due to service failures (25 April 2021)
This order clarifies the strict evidentiary threshold required by the DIFC Courts to satisfy service of process under Part 9 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) before a default judgment can be granted.
LPA v RESOIL CARIBBEAN [2021] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for unpaid service fees (28 March 2021)
The dispute centers on a straightforward commercial debt recovery claim brought by LPA (Middle East) Ltd against Resoil Caribbean SRL. The Claimant sought to recover outstanding fees totaling USD 300,000.00, which remained unpaid despite the issuance of invoices for services rendered.
THE NATIONAL BANK OF RAS AL KHAIMAH v MR LAKSHMANAN SUNIL KUMAR PANDARATHIL [2019] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for breach of Purchase Facility Agreement (01 April 2019)
The dispute arose from a commercial banking relationship governed by a Purchase Facility Agreement. The National Bank of Ras Al Khaimah (P.S.C) initiated proceedings to recover outstanding debts owed by the defendant, Mr Lakshmanan Sunil Kumar Pandarathil.
THE NATIONAL BANK OF RAS AL KHAIMAH v MR LAKSHMANAN SUNIL KUMAR PANDARATHIL [2019] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for breach of Purchase Facility Agreement (20 March 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural requirements for securing a default judgment in a debt recovery claim involving a Purchase Facility Agreement.
SAMAR AOUAD v LA TRESORERIE [2018] DIFC CFI 008 — Consent order and stay of proceedings (25 July 2018)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI-008-2018 involved a claim brought by Samar Aouad against La Tresorerie Limited. While the specific underlying cause of action—whether arising from a commercial contract, employment dispute, or service agreement—remains confidential due to the private…
SAMAR AOUAD v LA TRESORERIE [2018] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural stay by consent (22 May 2018)
A procedural order issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance granting a temporary stay of proceedings to facilitate party-led resolution efforts.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (24 April 2017)
The litigation between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC has been characterized by a series of procedural maneuvers, including earlier efforts to enforce English High Court judgments and the granting of freezing injunctions.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural fairness in wasted costs applications (27 March 2017)
The dispute arises from the protracted enforcement proceedings initiated by Bocimar International N.V. against Emirates Trading Agency LLC to recover a substantial judgment debt. Following a series of procedural hurdles, including difficulties in serving witnesses regarding contempt proceedings, a…
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Denial of de novo review for lack of JJC filing evidence (16 March 2017)
The dispute between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC has been a protracted enforcement matter involving significant financial stakes, including a USD 118 million judgment debt previously addressed in [BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Wasted costs for procedural incompetence (06 March 2017)
Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi imposes personal liability for costs on legal representatives following a failed adjournment application and a fundamental misunderstanding of RDC service requirements.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Denial of stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (28 February 2017)
The DIFC Court of First Instance rejects a defendant’s attempt to halt long-standing enforcement proceedings through unsubstantiated claims of a pending Joint Judicial Committee (JJC) stay.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CFI 008 — Committal order for contempt of court (17 January 2017)
The lawsuit concerns the ongoing enforcement of a substantial judgment debt owed by Emirates Trading Agency to Bocimar International N.V. Following the court's previous interventions, including the granting of a freezing injunction to secure a USD 118 million judgment debt, the claimant sought to…