LITT
Try LITT free
SAMEER AL ANSARI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 006 — Judicial closure of real estate litigation via consent (12 November 2013)
A formal order by Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser confirming the discontinuance of proceedings between Sameer Al Ansari, Habib Ghawi, and Daman Real Estate Capital Partners following a private settlement.
SAMEER AL ANSARI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 006 — Judicial Officer rejects confidentiality claim over board minutes (27 August 2013)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimants, Mr. Sameer Al Ansari and Mr. Habib Ghawi, and the Defendant, Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited. The core of this specific application concerned the status of documents produced by the Defendant on 30 July 2013, specifically the…
SAMEER AL ANSARI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 006 — Disclosure obligations under RDC Part 28 (16 July 2013)
The litigation, registered as CFI 006/2013, centers on a commercial dispute involving real estate investment interests where the parties reached an impasse regarding the scope of pre-trial disclosure.
Sameer Al Aansari v Daman Real Estate Capital Partners [2013] DIFC CFI 006 — Procedural framework for complex real estate litigation (23 May 2013)
The litigation involves a civil claim brought by two claimants, Sameer Al Aansari and Habib Ghawi, against the respondent, Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited. While the specific underlying merits of the claim are not detailed in the procedural order, the case is categorized under the real…
SAMEER AL ANSARI v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CFI 006 — Procedural timetable for complex real estate litigation (05 March 2013)
This procedural order establishes the comprehensive litigation roadmap for the dispute between Sameer Al Ansari, Habib Ghawi, and Daman Real Estate Capital Partners, setting strict deadlines for pleadings, disclosure, and expert evidence.
ARQAAM CAPITAL v DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY [2012] DIFC CFI 006 — Regulatory privacy and disclosure standards (04 September 2013)
The Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for restricting public access to regulatory proceedings, affirming that the Financial Markets Tribunal maintains broad discretion to mandate public hearings in the interest of transparency.
DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v ARQAAM CAPITAL [2012] DIFC CFI 006 — Reissuance of judgment regarding public proceedings and confidentiality (10 September 2012)
The core of this dispute involves an appeal by Arqaam Capital Limited against directions issued by a Hearing Panel of the Financial Markets Tribunal. The underlying proceedings were initiated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) against Arqaam and its auditor, Ernst & Young, concerning…
AMANAH XDATA LLC [2010] DIFC CFI 006 — Winding up order (19 May 2010)
The litigation concerned the insolvency of Amanah XData LLC, which necessitated judicial intervention to facilitate a formal winding-up process. The court reviewed the petition submitted by the claimant, which sought the dissolution of the entity due to its inability to meet its financial…
JSA LAW v AMANAH XDATA [2010] DIFC CFI 006 — Emergency relocation of data centre equipment (17 May 2010)
The dispute centered on the immediate necessity for JSA Law to regain control over its operational hardware, which was effectively sequestered within the data racks of Amanah XData. The applicant, JSA Law, sought judicial assistance to facilitate the transfer of this equipment to a separate, secure…
RASMALA INVESTMENTS v AHMED ABDEL BASET [2009] DIFC CFI 006 — Setting aside a Small Claims Tribunal judgment (02 March 2009)
The litigation originated as a claim brought by Ahmed Abdel Baset against Rasmala Investments Limited, which was initially adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). While the underlying merits of the original claim involved a civil dispute between the parties, the matter escalated to the…
AHMED ABDEL BASET v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 006 — Dismissal of procedural application (18 February 2009)
The dispute between Ahmed Abdel Baset and Rasmala Investments Limited reached a procedural impasse on 17 February 2009, when the Claimant filed an application seeking relief from the Court of First Instance.
AHMED ABDEL BASET v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 006 — stay of execution pending appeal (09 February 2009)
The litigation between Ahmed Abdel Baset and Rasmala Investments Limited centers on the enforcement of a prior judicial order issued within the DIFC Court of First Instance. The dispute reached a critical juncture when the Defendant, Rasmala Investments Limited, sought to halt the immediate…
HOWARD NORMAN LEEDHAM v OXFORD INVESTMENT MANAGERS [2008] DIFC CFI 006 — Rectification of clerical errors in employment judgments (22 November 2010)
The claimant, Howard Norman Leedham, sought a formal amendment to the judgment issued by the Court of First Instance on 21 June 2010. The application was necessitated by a specific factual inconsistency regarding the duration of his employment with the defendant, Oxford Investment Managers Limited.
HOWARD NORMAN LEEDHAM v OXFORD INVESTMENT MANAGERS [2008] DIFC CFI 006 — Employment dispute over unpaid salary and corporate identity (22 June 2010)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the jurisdictional reach over foreign entities and the procedural requirements for amending party names in employment litigation.
HOWARD NORMAN LEEDHAM v OXFORD INVESTMENT MANAGERS [2009] DIFC CFI 006 — Denial of default judgment application (20 July 2009)
The dispute in CFI 006/2008 centered on the Claimant, Howard Norman Leedham, seeking a default judgment against the Defendant, Oxford Investment Managers. The application was formally filed on 12 July 2009, following the Defendant’s failure to respond to the claim within the prescribed timeframe.
HOWARD NORMAN LEEDHAM v OXFORD INVESTMENT MANAGERS [2009] DIFC CFI 006 — Registrar denies summary judgment on conditional settlement offer (30 June 2009)
The dispute centers on an application for judgment filed by the Claimant, Howard Norman Leedham, against the Defendant, Oxford Investment Managers. The Claimant sought to bypass standard trial procedures by asserting that a letter dated 8 January 2009, sent by the Defendant, constituted a formal…
FORSYTH PARTNERS GLOBAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED v FORSYTH PARTNERS (MIDDLE EAST) LIMITED [2011] DIFC CFI 006 — Procedural joinder and liquidation directions (08 May 2011)
The litigation concerns the ongoing liquidation of Forsyth Partners Global Distributors Limited and Forsyth Partners (Middle East) Limited, entities subject to the regulatory oversight of the DIFC Courts under the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.
FORSYTH PARTNERS (MIDDLE EAST) v FORSYTH PARTNERS (MIDDLE EAST) [2007] DIFC CFI 006 — Winding up order under DIFC Insolvency Law (20 September 2007)
The petition brought by Forsyth Partners (Middle East) Limited represented a critical moment in the early operational history of the DIFC’s insolvency regime. The company sought the formal intervention of the Court to initiate a winding-up process, effectively requesting the Court to exercise its…
LAITHIN v LABUKI [2022] DIFC CFI 005 — Abandonment of appeal and judicial finality (16 March 2022)
The litigation originated from a judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nassir on 9 December 2021. The Appellants, Laithin and Lalal, initially sought to challenge the findings of that judgment, leading to the filing of an appeal.
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2025] DIFC CFI 005 — Finality of costs orders and the presumption of success (14 February 2025)
The litigation, initiated via a Part 8 Claim Form on 14 January 2021, involved a complex dispute between the Claimants, Anoop Kumar Lal and Paul Patrick Hennessy, and the Defendant, Donna Benton. The proceedings spanned several years, involving a substantive judgment delivered by H.E.
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2024] DIFC CFI 005 — Finality of appellate permission and the limits of RDC case management powers (22 October 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that RDC 4.2(6) and 4.7 cannot be used to reopen or stay a final decision refusing permission to appeal, even where procedural communication errors are alleged.
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2023] DIFC CFI 005 — Refusal of permission to appeal following findings of fact (21 December 2023)
The underlying litigation, *Anoop Kumar Lal and Paul Patrick Hennessy v Donna Benton* [2021] DIFC CFI 005, concerns a complex dispute involving the Claimants and the Respondent, Donna Benton.
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2023] DIFC CFI 005 — Stay of execution pending permission to appeal (07 November 2023)
The litigation between Anoop Kumar Lal and Paul Patrick Hennessy (the Claimants) and Donna Benton (the Defendant) has been a protracted affair involving multiple procedural milestones, including the transition from Part 8 to Part 7 proceedings and various case management directions regarding breach…
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2023] DIFC CFI 005 — Registry authority and the strict interpretation of RDC 44.30 (02 November 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the procedural threshold for invoking RDC 44.30, confirming that appellants must proactively demonstrate "impracticability" to avoid late filing penalties when failing to serve a skeleton argument alongside a Notice of Appeal.