LITT
Try LITT free
HAVAS WORLDWIDE MIDDLE EAST v ARAB FASHION COUNCIL [2021] DIFC CFI 026 — Enforcement of settlement agreement and consent order (17 June 2021)
The dispute centered on the failure of the Arab Fashion Council to adhere to the payment schedule established in a prior settlement agreement. Havas Worldwide Middle East, having previously initiated proceedings under CFI 026/2019, sought the intervention of the Court to enforce the terms of a…
HAVAS WORLDWIDE MIDDLE EAST v ARAB FASHION COUNCIL [2020] DIFC CFI 026 — Consent order staying proceedings (25 June 2020)
The litigation involved a commercial dispute between Havas Worldwide Middle East FZ-LLC, a prominent communications and marketing agency, and the Arab Fashion Council. While the specific underlying contractual breach or debt claim was not detailed in the public record of the consent order, the…
HAVAS WORLDWIDE MIDDLE EAST v ARAB FASHION COUNCIL [2019] DIFC CFI 026 — procedural extension for filing defence (23 December 2019)
The lawsuit concerns a commercial dispute between Havas Worldwide Middle East, trading as Havas PR Middle East, and the Arab Fashion Council. The litigation, registered under case number CFI-026-2019, reached a procedural juncture in December 2019 when the defendant sought judicial intervention to…
AL TAYER STOCKS v PAF LIMITED [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Winding up of Peyote Restaurant (25 July 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the insolvency of a hospitality sector entity, confirming the appointment of a liquidator following the absence of creditor objections.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2019] DIFC CFI 026 — Order of Discontinuance (13 March 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formally concludes proceedings in CFI-026-2017 following a private settlement agreement between Tavira Securities Limited and the four named defendants.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2019] DIFC CFI 026 — Pre-Trial Review procedural directions (06 March 2019)
This order clarifies the procedural landscape of a complex financial services dispute, resolving contested amendments to statements of case, document production obligations, and the logistical requirements for international witness testimony.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi’s ruling on document disclosure (24 December 2018)
The dispute centers on a disclosure battle within the broader litigation between Tavira Securities Limited and a group of four defendants: Re Point Ventures FZCO, Jai Narain Gupta, Mayank Kumar, and Saroj Gupta.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial oversight of document production (29 November 2018)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimant, Tavira Securities Limited, and four Respondents: Re Point Ventures FZCO, Jai Narain Gupta, Mayank Kumar, and Saroj Gupta.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural resolution of Unless Order application (07 November 2018)
The litigation involved a dispute between the Claimant, Tavira Securities Limited, and four Respondents: Re Point Ventures FZCO, Jai Narain Gupta, Mayank Kumar, and Saroj Gupta. The core of the procedural friction centered on the Claimant’s Request for Further Information of the Defence, which was…
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural consolidation and trial readiness (23 October 2018)
This order establishes a comprehensive procedural roadmap for the resolution of complex multi-party litigation, setting firm deadlines for document production and witness evidence ahead of a March 2019 trial window.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Procedural order for disclosure of further information (05 September 2018)
The litigation involves a dispute between Tavira Securities Limited and four defendants: Re Point Ventures FZCO, Jai Narain Gupta, Mayank Kumar, and Saroj Gupta. The core of the current procedural impasse centered on the Claimant’s need for additional clarity regarding the Defendants' position,…
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Denial of Default Costs Certificate (09 August 2018)
Following the resolution of a jurisdiction challenge in the underlying proceedings, Tavira Securities Limited (the Claimant) sought to recover its legal costs. On 29 January 2018, Justice Sir Richard Field issued an order regarding the Claimant's costs associated with that specific challenge.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2018] DIFC CFI 026 — Costs and pleading amendments following a failed jurisdiction challenge (29 January 2018)
Following the dismissal of a jurisdiction challenge, the DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for indemnity costs and the evidentiary requirements for amending pleadings to include allegations of fraud and conspiracy.
TAVIRA SECURITIES v RE POINT VENTURES [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Denial of extension for post-hearing submissions (03 October 2017)
Tavira Securities Limited, the Claimant in this matter, found itself in a position where it required additional time to prepare and file its post-hearing submissions following a hearing held on 19 September 2017.
DOLCEZZA LLC v NOT APPLICABLE [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Appointment of Provisional Liquidator (19 February 2017)
The litigation concerns the insolvency status of Dolcezza LLC, a company registered within the Dubai International Financial Centre under Registration Number 1403. The petitioner, Dolcezza LLC, sought the intervention of the DIFC Courts to initiate a formal winding-up process, effectively placing…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2018] DIFC CFI 026/2014 — Permission to appeal granted on set-off doctrines (05 February 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants leave to appeal an order concerning the application of mandatory and judicial set-off under the UAE Civil Code, citing significant public interest in clarifying these core legal doctrines.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Refusal of leave to appeal and stay of execution (01 October 2017)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of debt obligations arising from two separate loan agreements between Standard Chartered Bank and Investment Group Private Limited. While the Defendant did not challenge the underlying merits or the quantum of the debt, they sought to obstruct enforcement by…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Immediate judgment and anti-setoff enforcement (05 September 2017)
The litigation centered on the recovery of outstanding principal amounts owed by Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL) to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) under two distinct credit facilities.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2014] DIFC CFI 026 — Immediate judgment on loan defaults and anti-setoff enforceability (16 August 2017)
The dispute centered on the recovery of outstanding principal amounts owed by Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL) to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) under two distinct credit facilities.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2017] DIFC CFI 026 — Case management conditions on counterclaims (02 April 2017)
The dispute arose in the context of long-standing litigation between Standard Chartered Bank and Investment Group Private Limited regarding a loan agreement. While the Claimant pursued summary judgment, the Defendant sought to introduce new, unpleaded counterclaims.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial stay and indemnity costs for procedural abuse (27 October 2016)
The Court of First Instance was tasked with determining an application for immediate judgment under RDC 24.1 regarding a substantial banking claim. However, the proceedings were interrupted by an order from the Chief Justice of the Dubai Court of Cassation, which triggered the involvement of the…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Dismissal of stay application pending Union Supreme Court determination (14 August 2016)
The dispute centers on the Defendant’s attempt to halt the ongoing litigation initiated by Standard Chartered Bank. Investment Group Private filed an Application Notice (CFI-026-2014/4) on 13 June 2016, requesting that the DIFC Court of First Instance stay all proceedings.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2016] DIFC CFI 026 — Judicial interpretation of Article 60 conflict of jurisdiction (01 August 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that a "conflict of jurisdiction" under Article 60 of Federal Law 10 of 1973 requires a formal assertion of authority by the competing courts, rather than mere parallel filings by litigants.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE [2015] DIFC CFI 026 — Consent order regarding procedural stay (30 July 2015)
The litigation involves a banking dispute initiated by Standard Chartered Bank against Investment Group Private Limited. While the underlying merits of the claim remain secondary to the procedural maneuvering in this specific order, the case centers on the Defendant’s challenge to the court's…