LITT
Try LITT free
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Compelling disclosure and oral examination of judgment debtor representatives (24 November 2016)
The Registrar of the DIFC Courts exercises powers under Part 50 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to enforce a substantial judgment debt by mandating the production of financial records and the personal attendance of an authorized representative for questioning.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Registrar’s order for asset disclosure and oral examination (06 October 2016)
This order marks a critical enforcement milestone in the long-running dispute between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC, compelling the disclosure of extensive financial records and the attendance of an authorized representative for questioning under oath.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Alternative service of Part 50 examination orders (27 September 2016)
The dispute arises from a significant judgment debt owed by Emirates Trading Agency LLC to Bocimar International N.V., originating from English High Court orders dated 17 July 2014. These orders were subsequently recognized and made enforceable within the DIFC Courts through a series of procedural…
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Alternative service of Part 50 examination orders (18 August 2016)
Registrar Mark Beer authorizes alternative service of Part 50 examination orders on key representatives of Emirates Trading Agency to facilitate the enforcement of a substantial judgment debt.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Amended Freezing Order (08 February 2016)
The dispute concerns a high-stakes commercial claim brought by Bocimar International N.V against Emirates Trading Agency LLC (ETA). The litigation, registered under case number CFI/008/2015, involves a substantial financial claim amounting to US$ 118,801,381.90.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008 — Freezing injunction granted to secure USD 118 million judgment debt (31 January 2016)
The litigation originated from the Claimant’s attempt to enforce two High Court of England and Wales orders dated 17 July 2014, which arose under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Freezing Order granted (28 January 2016)
The dispute concerns a high-stakes commercial claim brought by Bocimar International N.V against Emirates Trading Agency LLC (ETA). The claimant sought, and was granted, a freezing order to restrain the respondent from disposing of or diminishing the value of its assets, both within and outside the…
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC [2016] DIFC CFI 008 — Consent order for enforcement of English High Court judgments (26 January 2016)
The dispute centered on the enforcement of two distinct orders issued by the High Court of England and Wales on 17 July 2014. These orders were granted pursuant to section 66 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, which allows for an arbitration award to be enforced in the same manner as a judgment…
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2015] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural limits on expert evidence in jurisdiction challenges (26 August 2015)
The underlying dispute between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC centers on a jurisdictional challenge, a critical threshold issue in the proceedings. Emirates Trading Agency sought to bolster its position by introducing expert evidence to support its arguments regarding…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS LIMITED [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Exclusive jurisdiction over licensed DIFC establishments (11 August 2013)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving licensed DIFC establishments, rejecting attempts to challenge proceedings based on prior litigation in the Dubai Civil Courts.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Dismissal of jurisdictional challenge (15 July 2013)
The dispute centers on a claim brought by Barclays Bank PLC against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar. The defendants sought to challenge the court's authority to adjudicate the matter by filing Application Notice CFI 008/2013/03, commonly referred to as the "Jurisdiction Application," on…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of adjournment application (11 July 2013)
The DIFC Court of First Instance enforces strict adherence to hearing schedules, denying a last-minute attempt by the Defendants to delay a critical jurisdiction challenge.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural timetable and case management directions (10 April 2013)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Barclays Bank PLC against Afras Limited and Mr. Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in the procedural order, the filing of a formal timetable indicates that the matter has moved beyond the initial filing…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v AFRAS [2013] DIFC CFI 008 — Alternative service via email (09 April 2013)
The dispute concerns a claim brought by Barclays Bank PLC against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar. As is common in commercial banking litigation within the DIFC, the claimant encountered difficulties in effecting formal service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim upon the…
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of joinder application (09 November 2011)
Anna Dadic sought to consolidate or expand the scope of her litigation by filing an Application for Joinder of Claimants on 28 October 2011. This application spanned a series of nine separate case files, specifically CFI 008/2011 through CFI 019/2011, in which she named the Dubai International…
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of a multi-litigation application (20 September 2011)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the dismissal of a wide-ranging application by Anna Dadic, reinforcing the court's refusal to entertain requests for relief that lack substantive legal merit or procedural foundation.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008-019 — Judicial management of vexatious litigation (26 June 2011)
The litigation involved a series of nine distinct claims (CFI 008/2011 through CFI 019/2011) initiated by Anna Dadic against the Dubai International Financial Centre and the DIFC Authority.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE [2011] DIFC CFI 008/2011 — Judicial intervention on repetitive litigation (09 June 2011)
The litigation landscape involving Anna Dadic and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) reached a critical juncture in June 2011, characterized by a proliferation of filings.
ANNA DADIC v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural dismissal of a multi-million dollar default judgment application (08 May 2011)
The litigation concerns a substantial claim brought by Anna Dadic against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA). The dispute originated on March 31, 2011, when the Claimant filed a Claim Form 7/01, initially marking the quantum of the claim as "TBD," indicating that the…
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Final settlement and discontinuance of proceedings (25 September 2011)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments LLC involved a complex set of claims that spanned over a year of procedural activity within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Pre-trial procedural directions and disclosure management (26 June 2011)
Justice Sir John Chadwick issues comprehensive pre-trial directions addressing expert report redactions, supplemental witness evidence, and mandatory disclosure obligations in the lead-up to the September 2011 trial.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2011] DIFC CFI 008 — Re-timetabling of case management events (20 April 2011)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments LLC, initiated under case number CFI 008/2010, reached a juncture where the original case management schedule required significant adjustment.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Case management and mediation directives (08 November 2010)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Bisher Barazi against DIFC Investments LLC, which centers on a complex set of allegations, including a claim for unpaid salary. The dispute reached a critical juncture in late 2010, requiring the Court to intervene in the structure of the parties'…
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for responsive pleadings (22 July 2010)
The litigation in CFI 008/2010 concerns a dispute between the Claimant, Bisher Barazi, and the Respondent, DIFC Investments. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain outside the scope of this specific procedural order, the case reached a juncture where the Claimant required…