LITT
Try LITT free
HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate reversal of immediate judgment (29 September 2020)
The litigation centers on a complex commercial dispute involving Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the two Respondents: the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Reopening of final appeal on costs (13 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of Appeal reaffirms the high threshold for reopening final judgments, ruling that a party’s failure to proactively address costs during proceedings does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" under RDC 44.154.
SUNSET HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS v HANA HABIB MANSOOR HABIB AL HERZ [2021] DIFC CA 011 — Procedural discretion and the misuse of Part 8 proceedings (21 February 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of judicial discretion when denying procedural transfers, emphasizing that a focus on "lateness" cannot override the necessity of determining a claim on its merits.
Hana Al Herz v The Dubai International Financial Centre Authority [2013] DIFC CA 004 — Employment law and the limits of judicial innovation (27 November 2014)
The dispute originated from the termination of Hana Al Herz (HAH) by the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA). HAH, who served as a Director of Insurance and Re-Insurance, sought reinstatement, damages for breach of contract, and compensation for alleged discrimination based on…
GULF WINGS v A AND K TRADING [2022] DIFC CA 014 — Restoring contempt findings after procedural irregularities (12 December 2022)
The litigation originated from a debt recovery claim brought by Gulf Wings FZE against A And K Trading Limited concerning an Aircraft Management Agreement for an Embraer EMB-135-BJ Legacy 600.
GRAND VALLEY GENERAL TRADING v GGICO SUNTECK [2019] DIFC CA 007 — Default judgment set aside for improper service (03 October 2019)
The Court of Appeal confirms that strict adherence to service requirements under the Rules of the DIFC Courts is a prerequisite for the validity of a default judgment, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
GINETTE v GEARY MIDDLE EAST [2016] DIFC CA-005 — Appeal regarding arbitral authority and interest rates (09 October 2016)
The dispute originated from a settlement agreement entered into on 21 May 2009 between Ginette PJSC and the respondents, Geary Middle East FZE and Geary Limited. Following a failure to make final payments under this agreement, the respondents initiated arbitration proceedings in 2014.
GCC International v Capital Investment International [2012] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying non-party disclosure costs (24 September 2012)
The DIFC Court of Appeal establishes that non-parties compelled to produce documents under RDC 38.66 are entitled to recover their reasonable legal costs from the applicant, correcting a misapplication of the general "loser pays" rule.
FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS v ASIF HAKIM ADIL [2016] DIFC CA 006 — Strict application of Article 18 employment penalties (20 March 2017)
The litigation originated from an employment contract dispute between the Appellant, Frontline Development Partners Limited, and the Respondent, Asif Hakim Adil, who served as the company’s Managing Director.
FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS v ASIF HAKIM ADIL [2015] DIFC CA 005 — Appellate review of security for costs applications (15 September 2015)
The litigation originated from an employment termination claim brought by Asif Hakim Adil against his former employer, Frontline Development Partners Limited. The claimant sought damages arising from the cessation of his employment, initiating proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance under…
FIDEL v FELECIA AND FARAZ [2015] DIFC CA 002 — The International Approach to non-DIFC UAE law (23 November 2015)
The Court of Appeal clarifies that the DIFC Courts are not bound by the English common law rule requiring foreign law to be proven as a fact through expert evidence, establishing the "International Approach" for non-DIFC UAE law.
Expresso Telecom Group v Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla [2022] DIFC CA 002 — Clarifying the scope of Article 19 penalty accrual (02 September 2022)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that an employer’s unilateral counterclaim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty does not suspend the statutory penalty clock for late payment of terminal benefits under the DIFC Employment Law.
ELSECO LIMITED v PIERRE-ERIC DANIEL BERNARD LYS [2016] DIFC CA 011 — Employment termination and statutory penalty interpretation (05 July 2017)
The dispute originated from the termination of Mr Pierre-Eric Daniel Bernard Lys by his employer, Elseco Limited. The central issue was whether the employer was justified in terminating the employment for cause under Article 59A of the DIFC Employment Law. The trial judge, H.E.
DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT v TAALEEM & NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CA 010 — Appeal regarding recurring Murabaha profit charges (18 August 2016)
The dispute originated from a tripartite arrangement involving the Sky Gardens Tower, where Taaleem P.J.S.C. sought to transfer its interest to Deyaar Development P.J.S.C. The financing for Taaleem’s initial investment was provided by National Bonds Corporation P.J.S.C. (NBC).
GFH Capital v David Lawrence Haigh [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Setting aside Immediate Judgment in complex fraud litigation (23 November 2017)
The dispute centers on allegations of fraud and dishonesty brought by GFH Capital Limited against its former employee, David Lawrence Haigh. The claimant sought an Immediate Judgment—a summary disposal of the case—based on evidence of fraudulent transactions allegedly orchestrated by Haigh.
DAG & COMPANY INTERNATIONAL v DAGNY [2013] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate affirmation of employment bonus and salary entitlements (21 August 2014)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the interplay between guaranteed minimum bonus provisions and the condition of continuing employment within discretionary bonus schemes.
DAG & COMPANY INTERNATIONAL v DAGNY [2013] DIFC CA 001 — Employment bonus entitlement and restitution of overpayment (10 August 2013)
The litigation arose from the termination of an employment contract between an investment bank, DAG & Company International, and its former employee, Dagny. The employee initiated proceedings to recover outstanding remuneration, specifically targeting salary, bonus, and gratuity payments for the…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CA 007 — The Conduit Jurisdiction Doctrine (25 February 2016)
The Court of Appeal confirms that the DIFC Courts serve as a conduit jurisdiction for the enforcement of foreign money judgments, establishing that such judgments, once recognized, become independent local judgments enforceable in the Dubai Courts.
DIFC Investments v Mohammed Akbar Mohammed Zia [2017] CA 005 — Strict enforcement of payment deadlines in real estate contracts (10 January 2018)
The litigation concerned a failed real estate transaction involving 72 separate contracts for the sale of properties. The Respondent, DIFC Investments LLC, sought a judicial declaration that these contracts were validly terminated following the Appellant’s failure to pay the purchase price by the…
DAS Real Estate v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2018] DIFC CA 007 — Appellate affirmation of lender termination rights (12 April 2018)
The dispute centered on the validity of a termination notice issued by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (now First Abu Dhabi Bank) on 21 May 2015 regarding a hotel development project on the Palm Jumeirah.
DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited v Youssef Issa Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006 — Commercial interpretation of real estate payment obligations (14 December 2015)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the primacy of commercial efficacy in contract interpretation, overturning a lower court ruling that had penalized a developer for terminating a reservation agreement following a purchaser's failure to meet payment schedules.
CREDIT SUISSE v ASHOK KUMAR GOEL [2020] DIFC CA 008 — Interim relief and the threshold for jurisdictional disputes (04 October 2020)
The litigation arose from an urgent application by Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited for a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) against four respondents: Ashok Kumar Goel, Sudhir Goyel, Manan Goel, and Prerit Goel.
CORINTH PIPEWORKS SA v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2011] DIFC CA 002 — Clarifying the scope of DIFC Court jurisdiction over foreign entities (22 January 2012)
The dispute centered on a claim for US$24 million brought by Corinth Pipeworks SA, a Greek company, against Barclays Bank PLC. The claimant alleged that it suffered significant financial loss due to deceit, unlawful conspiracy, and negligence involving representations made by an employee at the…
CARMON REESTRUTURA-ENGENHARIA E SERVIÇOS TÉCNIOS E v ANTONIO JOAO CATETE LOPES CUENDA [2024] DIFC CA 003 — Appellate clarification on WFO jurisdiction in support of foreign proceedings (26 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the jurisdictional threshold for granting Worldwide Freezing Orders (WFOs) in the DIFC in aid of foreign litigation, revisiting the restrictive precedent set in Sandra Holding.