LITT
Try LITT free
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v KENNETH DAVID ROHAN [2013] DIFC CA 005 — Court of Appeal rejects conditional strike-out of appeal (15 December 2013)
The dispute arises from a real estate investment matter where Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited (the Appellant) sought to challenge a lower court judgment. Following the initial ruling, the Respondents—Kenneth David Rohan, Andrew James Mostyn Pugh, Michelle Gemma Mostyn Pugh, and Stuart…
KENNETH DAVID ROHAN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Reopening an appeal due to procedural oversight (24 April 2014)
The DIFC Court of Appeal grants permission to reopen an appeal, ensuring that the Appellant’s arguments regarding Force Majeure and contractual termination are fully adjudicated following a procedural failure to address key grounds.
ORAN v OVED [2025] DIFC CA 004 — The limits of DIFC injunctive power (28 October 2025)
The lawsuit centers on a contractual dispute arising from air ambulance services provided by Oved, a UK-incorporated company, to the late Mr Oran and his agent, Mr Oaken. Following a disagreement over substantial fees paid for the transport of the late Mr Oran’s wife from Switzerland to South…
MR ORAN v OVED [2025] DIFC CA 004 — Assessment of costs following successful jurisdictional challenge (08 December 2025)
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge an anti-suit injunction and uphold the Appellants' jurisdictional objection, H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin conducted an immediate assessment of costs, awarding the Appellants AED 720,000.
AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v IDBI BANK [2021] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural timeline adjustment for appellate skeleton arguments (21 April 2021)
The dispute concerns the appellate timeline for the submission of supplementary skeleton arguments following the Respondent’s filing of a Notice and Skeleton Argument on 28 March 2021.
AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v IDBI BANK [2021] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural timeline adjustment for appellate skeleton arguments (12 April 2021)
The dispute concerns an appeal brought by Amira C Foods International DMCC and Karan A Chanana against IDBI Bank Limited. The matter before the Court of Appeal involves the management of complex appellate filings, specifically the exchange of supplementary skeleton arguments.
DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CA 004 — Clarifying the trigger for enforcement fees (02 June 2016)
The dispute arose from enforcement proceedings (ENF-030-2015) initiated by National Bonds Corporation against Deyaar Development following two earlier judgments in CFI-014-2010, which collectively ordered Deyaar to pay over AED 227 million.
HANA AL HERZ v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2014] DIFC CA 004 — Procedural directions on employment gratuity and damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute centers on the employment relationship between Hana Al Herz and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority. The litigation concerns the Appellant’s entitlement to end-of-service gratuity and potential damages arising from an alleged breach of Article 56 of the DIFC Employment…
SHAHAB HAIDER v ERNST & YOUNG MIDDLE EAST [2012] DIFC CA 004 — Court of Appeal order for insolvency disclosure (24 January 2012)
The dispute centered on the Liquidator’s efforts to gather information critical to the administration of Orion Holding Overseas Limited (in liquidation). Shahab Haider, acting in his capacity as Liquidator, sought to compel Ernst & Young Middle East (E&Y) to produce a wide array of records…
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural consolidation of costs and payment return applications (18 October 2023)
The litigation involves a complex family and corporate dispute between Sandra Holding Ltd and Nuri Musaed Al Saleh (the Claimants/Respondents) and Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi (the Defendants/Appellants).
SANDRA HOLDING v FAWZI MUSAED AL SALEH [2023] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural scheduling for appellate costs (12 October 2023)
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute between Sandra Holding Ltd and Nuri Musaed Al Saleh (as Claimants/Respondents) and Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi (as Defendants/Appellants).
TATIANA MIKHAVILOVNA AKHMEDOVA v FARKHAD TEIMUR OGLY AKHMEDOV [2018] DIFC CA 003 — jurisdictional limits on freezing injunctions (28 May 2018)
The litigation centers on a complex enforcement effort initiated by Tatiana Mikhavilovna Akhmedova against her former spouse, Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov, and a Liechtenstein-incorporated entity, Straight Establishment.
BOCIMAR INTERNATIONAL N.V. v EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY [2017] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions for appellate filings (03 April 2017)
The litigation involves a commercial disagreement between Bocimar International N.V. and Emirates Trading Agency LLC, which has escalated to the appellate level within the DIFC Courts.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (26 April 2015)
This order addresses the procedural management of appellate timelines within the DIFC Court of Appeal, specifically concerning the deadline for filing a Respondents’ Notice in a complex banking dispute.
RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2015] DIFC CA 003 — Synchronizing appellate procedural timelines (23 March 2015)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai (the Claimants) and the two defendants, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd.
MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2014] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions on employment gratuity and damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute centers on the appellant, Marwan Ahmad Lutfi, and his claims against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA) regarding his entitlements following the termination of his employment.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002 — Court of Appeal clarifies cost awards in moot enforcement appeals (25 June 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for recovering costs in academic appeals, confirming that the "tolerably clear" test applies when supervening events render the underlying dispute moot.
OLSEN v OTHMAR [2025] DIFC CA 002/2025 — Assessment of excessive appeal costs (09 September 2025)
The DIFC Court of Appeal exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to slash a disproportionate costs claim following the mootness of an appeal.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC CA 002 — Costs allocation following retrial order (22 August 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal clarifies the methodology for apportioning costs in complex litigation where a retrial is ordered, favoring percentage-based allocations over issue-based assessments.
Fabiola v Faddey [2015] DIFC ARB 001: Balancing Arbitral Finality Against Parallel Annulment Challenges
How Sir John Chadwick’s intervention in the Fabiola dispute defined the DIFC’s cautious approach to enforcement during pending local court challenges.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2024] DIFC COURT OF APPEAL CA 002/2023 — Procedural management of cost submissions (25 July 2024)
The lawsuit involves a complex appellate matter between Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE against Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner. Following the Court of Appeal’s substantive judgment delivered on 13 June 2024, the court directed the parties to…
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CA 002 — procedural management of appellate filings (23 June 2022)
The litigation concerns an appeal brought by Expresso Telecom Group against Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla. Following an initial application for permission to appeal, the parties engaged in a series of filings, including a Second Permission Application submitted by the appellant on 14 January 2022 and a…
FIVE RIVER PROPERTIES v WATERFRONT PROPERTY INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CA 002 — Consent order dismissing appeal (14 December 2009)
The litigation involved a complex commercial disagreement between the Appellants, Five River Properties LLC and Renaissance Holdings and Developers FZE, and the Respondents, Waterfront Property Investment Limited and Linarus FZE.
NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION v TAALEEM [2012] DIFC CA 001/2011 — Rectification of clerical errors in Court of Appeal judgments (11 March 2012)
The dispute originated from an underlying appeal, CA 001/2011, involving National Bonds Corporation PJSC as the Appellant and Taaleem PJSC and Deyaar Development PJSC as the Respondents.