LITT
Try LITT free
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 025 — Dismissal of renewed application for permission to appeal (29 January 2026)
The dispute centers on the contractual rights of Jonathan David Sheppard, the former Chief Technology Officer of Sadapay Technologies, following his attempt to exercise an option to acquire restricted shares. The conflict arose after Mr.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Costs assessment following refused permission to appeal (16 December 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance provides a critical reminder on proportionality and the assessment of legal costs when counsel manages multiple linked proceedings simultaneously.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal of permission to appeal regarding employment limitation periods (20 November 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the restrictive limitation periods under the DIFC Employment Law do not apply to all employment-related disputes, specifically excluding contractual claims regarding share valuation.
JONATHAN DAVID SHEPPARD v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 025 — Clarifying the distinction between employment remuneration and share incentive plan breaches (19 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that disputes arising from share incentive plans are not inherently 'employment claims' under the DIFC Employment Law, potentially shielding such actions from the strict six-month limitation period.
NATASHA v NOAH [2024] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal of permission to appeal following litigant in person proceedings (03 October 2024)
The dispute arises from a Part 8 Claim initiated by Natasha on 15 April 2024, which was subsequently amended on 17 May 2024. Following the initial adjudication of this claim, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke issued an Order with Reasons on 22 July 2024.
NATASHA v NOAH [2024] DIFC CFI 025 — Restitution and waiver of termination rights (22 July 2024)
The Court of First Instance confirms that a party who accepts performance after a breach—specifically by cashing postdated cheques—waives the right to terminate a contract, entitling the counterparty to full restitution of paid sums.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Default judgment and electronic service validity (06 September 2023)
This ruling clarifies the scope of RDC 9.19 regarding electronic service of process and confirms the threshold for obtaining default judgment against entities operating within the DIFC.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Retrospective extension of time for appeal due to portal failure (01 September 2023)
The underlying litigation involves a claim for USD 278,934 brought by Marko and Barbara Kralj against a group of entities collectively referred to as the Royal Vision Group, including Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited and Royal Vision Capital (DIFC) Limited.
MARKO KRALJ v ROYAL VISION INTELLIGENT FUND [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Default Judgment procedural requirements (14 June 2023)
The dispute involves a claim brought by Marko and Barbara Kralj against a complex array of entities and individuals, including Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited, Royal Vision Holding, Royal Vision Holding Limited, Royal Vision Capital (DIFC) Limited, Danylo Shamatava, and Stefan Frieb.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Refusal to set aside default judgment following admission of liability (07 November 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that a defendant’s financial inability to satisfy a debt does not constitute a valid legal ground to set aside a default judgment where liability has been formally admitted.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Default judgment following failed jurisdictional challenge (22 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance grants a default judgment for AED 44 million after the defendant fails to file a defence following the dismissal of its jurisdictional challenge.
DR OTHMAN ABDULLAH O ALSWAYEH v GII ISLAMIC REIT [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Jurisdiction over share-based payment obligations (31 August 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms its exclusive jurisdiction over shareholder-related disputes, distinguishing corporate obligations from property-related claims in a complex real estate investment structure.
CALVIN E JUNGQUIST v CORBIN CROSSROADS CONSULTING [2021] DIFC CFI 025 — Dismissal of consultancy fee claims arising from UAE defence offset programmes (24 August 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed a multi-faceted claim for breach of contract and conspiracy, clarifying the scope of consultancy agreements within the complex regulatory framework of US-UAE Foreign Military Sales and defence offset obligations.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Costs allocation and interim payment refusal (27 September 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the application of RDC 38.8(1) in complex multi-party litigation, balancing the general rule of costs following the event against specific issue-based success.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2023] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural extension for costs submissions (15 August 2023)
The litigation involves a substantial banking claim brought by the Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) against a series of corporate and individual defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Ventures Ltd, Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several named individuals: Vijey Kapoor, Ravi…
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural variation of compliance deadlines (23 November 2022)
The litigation involves Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) acting as the Claimant against a complex array of corporate and individual defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Ventures Ltd, Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several named individuals: Vijey Kapoor, Ravi Kuchimanchi,…
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural directions following partial trial (23 September 2022)
Justice Lord Angus Glennie issues a structured timetable for closing submissions and outstanding procedural applications following the conclusion of a five-day partial trial in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural permission for reply submissions (22 August 2022)
The litigation in CFI 025/2020 involves a complex banking dispute between Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) and a series of corporate and individual defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Ventures Ltd, Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several individual respondents.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural management of late-filed expert evidence (25 July 2022)
The litigation involves a high-stakes banking dispute between the Claimant, Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch), and a series of corporate and individual defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Venture Ltd., Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several individual respondents.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Adjusting trial bundle deadlines via consent (26 April 2022)
The litigation, registered as CFI 025/2020, involves a claim brought by the DIFC branch of the Union Bank of India against a group of eight defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Venture Ltd., Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and five individual defendants: Vjey Kapoor, Ravi Kuchimanki,…
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Consent order varying pre-trial obligations (29 March 2022)
A procedural refinement in the ongoing banking litigation concerning the extension of compliance deadlines for the Fourth Defendant.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Pre-Trial Review and procedural directions (24 March 2022)
The litigation concerns a banking dispute initiated by the Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) against a series of corporate entities and individuals, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Venture Ltd., Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and several individual defendants, including Vjey Kapoor.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2022] DIFC CFI 025 — Procedural variation of expert evidence deadlines (14 January 2022)
A procedural consent order refining the litigation timeline in a complex multi-party banking dispute to facilitate the submission of expert testimony.
UNION BANK OF INDIA v VELOCITY INDUSTRIES [2021] DIFC CFI 025 — procedural timeline adjustment (28 December 2021)
The litigation involves Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) acting as the Claimant against a group of eight defendants, including Velocity Industries LLC, Velocity Venture Ltd., Umaku Trade Invest Limited, and five individual defendants: Vjey Kapoor, Ravi Kuchimanki, Rajinder Makhijani, Parag Gupta,…