LITT
Try LITT free
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2018] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension for service of process (13 May 2018)
The litigation involves KBC Aldini Capital Limited as the Claimant against three Respondents: David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp., and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited. While the specific underlying merits of the claim remain distinct from this procedural order, the case has been subject to…
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2018] DIFC CFI 002 — Alternative service and procedural extension (12 April 2018)
This order addresses the procedural hurdles of serving a defendant residing in Canada, clarifying the application of alternative service rules within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV & OTHERS [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Extension of time for service of process (28 December 2017)
The dispute in CFI 002/2017 centers on the procedural management of a claim initiated by KBC Aldini Capital Limited against a diverse group of respondents, including David Baazov and the Canaccord Genuity corporate entities.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural order regarding legal representation (09 April 2017)
The lawsuit, filed under case number CFI-002-2017, involves KBC Aldini Capital Limited as the Claimant against three Respondents: David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp., and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural limitations on default judgment (12 February 2017)
The dispute centers on a procedural application filed by the Claimant, KBC Aldini Capital Limited, seeking a default judgment against three named Respondents: David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp, and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited.
DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK [2016] DIFC CFI 002 — Preliminary issues on loan acceleration and Material Adverse Change (10 August 2017)
The dispute centers on a high-value financing arrangement between DAS Real Estate and First Abu Dhabi Bank (formerly National Bank of Abu Dhabi). The core of the litigation concerns whether the bank was entitled to terminate and accelerate the repayment of a massive loan facility.
DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Consent order for corporate name change (09 August 2017)
The litigation between Das Real Estate, represented by Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid Al Muhairi, and the National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC concerns complex banking disputes that were already well underway in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Directions for preliminary determination of liability (29 January 2017)
This Directions Order formalizes the procedural roadmap for a bifurcated trial, focusing the Court’s attention on threshold liability issues before addressing quantum or secondary claims.
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2016] DIFC CFI 002 — Detailed assessment of costs following injunctive relief proceedings (04 October 2016)
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal expenses incurred by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD) following the Claimant’s failed attempt to secure mandatory and prohibitive injunctive relief.
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2016] DIFC CFI 002 — Document production limitations (06 September 2016)
The litigation involves a dispute between DAS Real Estate, represented by Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid AlMuhairi, and the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD). The matter reached a critical juncture regarding the scope of disclosure, specifically concerning the parties' respective Requests to…
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2016] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural Order by Consent (22 June 2016)
The lawsuit concerns a high-stakes commercial dispute between Das Real Estate, represented by Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid Al Muhairi, and the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD). While the specific underlying causes of action are developed through the pleadings, the litigation centers on project…
DAS REAL ESTATE v NATIONAL BANK OF ABU DHABI [2016] DIFC CFI 002 — Mandatory injunctions and facility agreement enforcement (08 February 2016)
The litigation arises from a long-standing commercial relationship between the Claimant, DAS Real Estate (owned by Mr. Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid Al Muhairi), and the Defendant, National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD).
AMJAD HAFEEZ v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Dismissal of claim following strike out application (18 December 2014)
The litigation involved a claim brought by Amjad Hafeez against Damac Park Towers Company Limited. While the underlying merits of the dispute were curtailed by procedural failure, the case represents a significant instance of the court exercising its gatekeeping powers to prevent the continuation…
AMJAD HAFEEZ v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Striking out deficient pleadings for failure to comply with court orders (17 November 2014)
The dispute centers on a real estate contract between the Claimant, Amjad Hafeez, and the Defendant, Damac Park Towers Company Limited. Following an initial failure to properly articulate his case, the Claimant sought to pursue a claim for misrepresentation regarding the configuration of an…
AMJAD HAFEEZ v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural timeline for document production and trial preparation (30 September 2014)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Amjad Hafeez against Damac Park Towers Company Limited. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in this procedural order, the case has reached a stage where the Court is actively managing the transition from preliminary issues to full…
AMJAD HAFEEZ v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Case management and preliminary issue scheduling (14 April 2014)
This Case Management Order establishes the procedural roadmap for the dispute between Amjad Hafeez and Damac Park Towers Company, prioritizing the resolution of preliminary legal issues before proceeding to full disclosure and trial.
SPX MIDDLE EAST FZE v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Quantification of judgment debt and assessed costs (20 August 2014)
The litigation between SPX Middle East FZE (formerly Invensys Middle East FZE) and Judi For Food Industries concerned the recovery of outstanding contractual payments arising from a commercial dispute.
SPX MIDDLE EAST v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Costs apportionment following substantive judgment (27 April 2014)
The litigation involved a commercial claim brought by SPX Middle East FZE, formerly known as Invensys Middle East FZE (APV Division), against Judi For Food Industries. The dispute centered on contractual obligations and performance issues arising from the parties' business relationship.
SPX MIDDLE EAST v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2013] DIFC CFI 002 — Opt-in jurisdiction and commissioning disputes (25 March 2014)
This judgment serves as a foundational precedent for the DIFC Court’s "opt-in" jurisdiction under Law No. 16 of 2011, while clarifying the evidentiary weight of snag lists in commercial plant installation disputes.
SPX MIDDLE EAST v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2014] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural enforcement of disclosure and trial readiness (02 February 2014)
Justice Sir David Steel issues a rigorous procedural order compelling the Defendant to rectify disclosure deficiencies and finalize trial preparations ahead of a February 2014 hearing.
SPX MIDDLE EAST v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2013] DIFC CFI 002 — Compelling document production via Redfern Schedule (24 November 2013)
The litigation involves a dispute between SPX Middle East FZE as the Claimant and Judi for Food Industries as the Defendant. The core of this specific procedural application concerned the failure or refusal of the Defendant to provide documents requested by the Claimant during the discovery phase…
SPX MIDDLE EAST v JUDI FOR FOOD INDUSTRIES [2013] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural timetable for trial (19 February 2013)
The lawsuit involves a commercial claim initiated by SPX Middle East FZE against Judi for Food Industries. While the specific underlying cause of action—whether contractual, tortious, or otherwise—remains to be fully ventilated in the forthcoming pleadings, the matter is currently at the stage of…
OPERA GALLERY v MR HICHAM DAOUDI [2012] DIFC CFI 002 — Extension of time for service of claim (10 October 2013)
Judicial Officer Maha AlMehairi grants a four-month extension for service of process in a long-standing commercial dispute.
OPERA GALLERY v HICHAM DAOUDI [2013] DIFC CFI 002 — Extension of time for service of process (05 June 2013)
The dispute centers on a procedural impasse regarding the service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim by the Claimant, Opera Gallery (Dubai) Limited, against the Defendant, Mr. Hicham Daoudi.