LITT
Try LITT free
ZIAD AZZAM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT P.J.S.C. [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Exclusive jurisdiction over parallel Dubai Court proceedings (28 December 2015)
The dispute centered on the intersection of parallel proceedings initiated by the parties in different judicial systems. Ziad Azzam, the Claimant, sought relief in the DIFC Courts, while Deyaar Development P.J.S.C., the Defendant, had already initiated proceedings against Azzam in the Dubai Courts…
Ziad Azzam v Deyaar Development [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Anti-suit injunctions and jurisdictional restraint (09 December 2015)
The dispute arose from the fallout of the high-profile *Taaleem* litigation, which concerned the sale of an interest in the Sky Gardens Tower located within the DIFC. Ziad Azzam, the former CEO of Taaleem, sought to prevent Deyaar Development from pursuing a separate lawsuit in the Dubai Courts.
ZIAD AZZAM v DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural extension for evidence filing (17 September 2015)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Ziad Azzam against the real estate developer Deyaar Development P.J.S.C. The matter reached a procedural juncture in September 2015 regarding the timeline for the exchange of evidence.
OMER SERIF OZCELIK v AAMER ABDULAZIZ AHMED SALMAN [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Default judgment for failure to respond (30 October 2014)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural requirements for obtaining a default judgment against multiple defendants who failed to acknowledge service or file a defense in a civil claim for USD 208,850.
DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v DEUTSCHE BANK AG [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Regulatory enforcement via consent order (06 February 2014)
The dispute centers on the DFSA’s regulatory oversight of Deutsche Bank AG’s Private Wealth Management (PWM) operations within the DIFC. The DFSA issued formal notices on 25 July 2013 and 1 October 2013, exercising its investigative powers under Article 80 of the Regulatory Law 2004.
DUBAI FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v DEUTSCHE BANK AG [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Regulatory pleading amendments and confidentiality (25 November 2013)
The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) initiated an application on 20 November 2013, seeking the court’s permission to modify its existing Particulars of Claim against Deutsche Bank AG.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS v BARCLAYS BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 024 — Interim payment of costs order (04 March 2015)
The dispute in CFI 024/2010 involved a complex multi-party litigation initiated by Corinth Pipeworks S.A. against Barclays Bank, which subsequently brought Part 21 proceedings against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Referral for contempt proceedings (27 April 2014)
The Court of First Instance exercises its inherent power to refer evidence of potential contempt to the Dubai Attorney General following the submission of irregular correspondence by the Part 21 Defendants.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural orders on service and legal representation (23 April 2014)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently brought Part 21 claims against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order staying proceedings (14 April 2014)
The litigation between Corinth Pipeworks SA and Barclays Bank PLC involved a complex commercial dispute that reached the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 024/2010. While the underlying factual allegations and the specific quantum of the claim remained confidential due to the…
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations in Part 21 proceedings (16 December 2013)
The litigation involves a complex dispute where Corinth Pipeworks SA (the Claimant) and Barclays Bank PLC (the Defendant) sought extensive document production from the Part 21 Defendants, namely Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — procedural recalibration of complex multi-party litigation (11 September 2013)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute initiated by Corinth Pipeworks SA against Barclays Bank PLC. The matter expanded significantly when Barclays introduced a Part 21 claim against Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — dismissal of time extension for appeal notices (11 August 2013)
The litigation in CFI 024/2010 involves a complex multi-party dispute where Corinth Pipeworks S.A. initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC, which subsequently involved Afras Limited and Radhakrishnan Nanda Kumar as Defendants to a Part 21 claim.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Consolidation of related proceedings (28 July 2013)
The consolidation order stems from the need to manage overlapping litigation involving the same core financial disputes. Corinth Pipeworks S.A. had initiated proceedings against Barclays Bank PLC under CFI 024/2010, while a subsequent action, CFI 008/2013, involved Barclays Bank PLC as a claimant…
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Disclosure obligations and procedural compliance (16 July 2013)
The dispute centers on a wide-ranging discovery process initiated by both parties in the context of a banking claim. Corinth Pipeworks SA sought extensive documentation from Barclays Bank PLC, leading to a series of specific Requests to Produce that required judicial intervention to resolve.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2013] DIFC CFI 024 — Procedural expansion of commercial litigation (25 March 2013)
This Case Management Order details the procedural expansion of a long-running banking dispute, granting the Defendant leave to join third parties and establishing a rigorous timetable for disclosure and expert evidence leading to a 2013 trial.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2011] DIFC CFI 024 — Consent order for lack of jurisdiction (06 April 2011)
The litigation involved a dispute between the Claimant, Corinth Pipeworks S.A., and the Defendant, Barclays Bank PLC. The proceedings were initiated via a Claim Form filed on 29 September 2010.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS S.A. v BARCLAY'S BANK PLC [2010] DIFC CFI 024 — Jurisdiction over non-DIFC activities of Centre Establishments (09 February 2011)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the status of a "Centre Establishment" does not grant the Court universal jurisdiction over all global activities of an international corporation, limiting it instead to disputes connected with the entity's DIFC-authorized business.
MAHUTA v MANWARI [2023] DIFC CFI 023 — SCT appeal review and expert report finality (28 April 2023)
This judgment clarifies the limited scope of appellate review for Small Claims Tribunal decisions and affirms the judicial reliance on expert findings in construction disputes.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2023] DIFC CFI 023 — Procedural withdrawal of legal representation (11 October 2023)
The litigation, spanning multiple case numbers including CFI 023/2021, CA 013/2021, and CA 015/2021, involves the Claimant, IGPL General Trading LLC, and a group of Respondents comprising Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, Westdene Investment Limited, and Paul Pretlove in his capacity as…
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Appellate permission for ground 5 (21 December 2021)
Chief Justice Zaki Azmi grants limited leave to appeal, allowing the Claimant to pursue ground 5 while upholding the refusal of ground 4 in the ongoing dispute between IGPL General Trading and three corporate respondents.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Permission to appeal and the threshold for immediate judgment (01 November 2021)
The underlying litigation involves a claim brought by IGPL General Trading LLC against three corporate entities: Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, and Westdene Investment Limited.
IGPL GENERAL TRADING v HORTIN HOLDINGS [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Consent order for appellate procedural extension (14 October 2021)
The litigation under CFI 023/2021 involves a multi-party commercial dispute where the Claimant, IGPL General Trading, has sought legal recourse against three distinct corporate entities: Hortin Holdings, Lodge Hill, and Westdene Investment.
IGPL General Trading v Hortin Holdings [2021] DIFC CFI 023 — Costs determination following dismissal of specific performance claim (06 October 2021)
The litigation centered on a commercial real estate dispute involving an alleged contract to lease premises located in London. The Claimant, IGPL General Trading LLC, initiated the proceedings seeking a court order to compel the Defendants—Hortin Holdings Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, and Westdene…