LITT
Try LITT free
Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen [2011] DIFC CA 001 — Clarifying the scope of Article 94 Regulatory Law and security for costs (23 January 2011)
The dispute centers on a claim for nearly US$75 million brought by Mr Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2010] DIFC CA 001 — Appellate review of pleading standards and regulatory liability (09 November 2010)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the threshold for pleading investment-related claims and confirms that Article 94 of the Regulatory Law provides a direct, independent cause of action for private litigants.
MELODY v MELANCE [2020] DIFC CA 010 — Appeal against costs assessment following interim injunction (11 May 2021)
The litigation arose from a shareholder dispute involving the ownership of 75 million new shares issued by MYRA. Melance claimed a beneficial interest in 39.5% of these shares (the "Disputed Shares"), while the Appellants, Melody and Molly (collectively "MELODY"), maintained that Melance’s option…
LAAMIH v LATEEF [2022] DIFC CA 001 — Appeal struck out for non-appearance (09 May 2022)
The lawsuit originated from an underlying order issued by Justice Wayne Martin on 13 December 2021. Following this order, the Appellants, Laamih, Labib, and Laeek, successfully sought permission to appeal, which was granted by Justice Wayne Martin on 3 February 2022.
Laabika v Ladu Capital Investments [2021] DIFC CA 008 — Jurisdiction of 'Courts of Dubai' clauses (07 September 2021)
The dispute arose from a loan agreement executed on 30 September 2016, wherein the Appellants, Laabika and Labhdi, provided a principal sum of €2,000,000 to the First Respondent, Ladu Capital Investments.
KOREK TELECOM COMPANY v IRAQ TELECOM [2024] DIFC CA 016 — The limits of the act of state doctrine in corruption-related arbitrations (16 June 2025)
The dispute centered on allegations of unlawful means conspiracy and breach of contract, specifically concerning the procurement of a decision from the Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (CMC).
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v ROHAN & BEYDOUN [2014] DIFC CA 005 — Appellate refusal to permit new force majeure pleadings (16 October 2014)
The dispute centered on the rights of purchasers of residential units in "The Building by Daman" to terminate their Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) due to the developer’s failure to complete construction by the contractually stipulated Anticipated Completion Date (ACD).
DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS v ROHAN [2013] DIFC CA 005 — Strict adherence to contractual notice requirements for real estate completion dates (16 March 2014)
The litigation centered on the failure of Daman Real Estate Capital Partners to complete residential units in "The Building by Daman" by the contractually stipulated Anticipated Completion Date (ACD).
KENNETH DAVID ROHAN v DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS [2013] DIFC CA 005/006 — Strict compliance with contractual notice provisions in real estate SPAs (11 February 2014)
The DIFC Court of Appeal affirms that unilateral extensions of an Anticipated Completion Date (ACD) in real estate development agreements require precise, unequivocal adherence to contractual notice requirements, invalidating vague correspondence from developers.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC CA 002 — Appellate review of digital asset liability and bailment (13 June 2024)
The litigation centers on a high-stakes dispute involving the loss of 300 Bitcoin (BTC) following a series of transactions where Tabarak Investment Capital acted as an intermediary. The Appellants, Gate MENA DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi MENA FZE, sought to recover the value of these…
FIRST ABU DHABI BANK v LARMAG HOLDING [2019] DIFC CA 010 — Jurisdictional reach over licensed financial institutions (23 March 2020)
The litigation arose from a claim by Larmag Holding B.V. (the Respondent) concerning the alleged fraudulent transfer of bonds. Larmag contended that it was induced by fraud, purportedly committed by a Mr. Aljabri and an entity known as Elite Holding Group, to sell certain Reditum SA Bonds.
EMIRATES NBD BANK v ADVANCED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT [2022] DIFC CA 012 — Appeal dismissed regarding AED 1.9 billion syndicated facility default (01 May 2023)
The dispute centers on a series of syndicated facility agreements entered into on 27 December 2018, involving a consortium of nine prominent financial institutions, including Emirates NBD Bank, HSBC Bank Middle East, and Dubai Islamic Bank.
Lachesis v Lacrosse [2021] DIFC ARB 005: The High Bar for Challenging Arbitral Awards on Public Policy Grounds
How Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi closed the door on merit-based appeals disguised as public policy challenges. On March 22, 2021, H.E.
ASHOK KUMAR GOEL v CREDIT SUISSE [2021] DIFC CA 002 — Jurisdiction over guarantees and the definition of 'Courts of Dubai' (26 April 2021)
The litigation arose from a series of guarantee agreements executed on 31 May 2016 by the Appellants—Ashok Kumar Goel, Sudhir Goyel, Manan Goel, and Prerit Goel—to secure credit facilities originally provided by Credit Suisse AG.
AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v IDBI BANK LIMITED [2021] DIFC CA 004 — Abuse of process and the rule in Henderson v Henderson (24 August 2021)
The Appellants, Amira C Foods International DMCC and Karan A Chanana, sought to strike out the Bank’s claim for USD 6,421,224.71, arguing that the proceedings were an abuse of process under the *Henderson v Henderson* doctrine.
American International Group UK Limited v Qatar Insurance Co. [2024] DIFC CA 008 — Immediate assessment of appeal costs (20 November 2024)
The litigation involved a dispute over the costs incurred by the Respondent, Qatar Insurance Co., following the unsuccessful appeal brought by a consortium of seven insurers, including American International Group UK Limited.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP UK v QATAR INSURANCE CO [2024] DIFC CA 008 — Reinsurance liability and sanctions clause interpretation (20 September 2024)
The DIFC Court of Appeal confirms that standard sanctions exclusion clauses do not automatically void reinsurance contracts where only a portion of the underlying risk involves sanctioned entities, reinforcing the necessity of precise nexus analysis in international insurance disputes.
ASHOK KUMAR GOEL v CREDIT SUISSE [2021] DIFC CA 002 — Judgment on costs and discharge of stay orders (21 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal clarifies the procedural mechanism for managing overlapping costs assessments across multiple related proceedings, emphasizing the Registrar’s role in concurrent assessment.
LOTHAR LUDWIG HARDT v HUSSAIN ALI HABIB SAJWANI [2010] DIFC CA 036 — Strict application of appellate filing deadlines (09 December 2010)
The litigation originated from a dispute involving Dr. Lothar Ludwig Hardt and Hardt Trading F.Z.E. against Hussain Ali Habib Sajwani and Peter Riddoch. The appellants sought to overturn a substantive order issued by Deputy Chief Justice Sir Anthony Colman on 1 August 2010.
SHAHAB HAIDER v ERNST & YOUNG MIDDLE EAST [2013] DIFC CA 004 — Refusal to set aside Default Cost Certificates (16 April 2013) [20130416]
The dispute centers on the assessment of Bills of Costs following litigation between Shahab Haider, acting as the Liquidator of Orion Holdings Overseas Limited, and Ernst & Young Middle East.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2011] DIFC CA 003 — Procedural directions for appellate review (29 June 2011)
The litigation originates from CFI 026/2009, involving claims brought by Mr. Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Mrs. Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Mrs. Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co Limited.
AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2011] DIFC CA 026 — Permission to appeal granted (24 May 2011)
The DIFC Court of Appeal formalizes the progression of the Al Khorafi litigation, granting the Claimants leave to challenge the earlier CFI ruling regarding investment losses.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Finality of appellate determinations and the threshold for re-opening appeals (14 March 2017)
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke denies the Defendant’s attempt to challenge a prior Court of Appeal order, reinforcing the strict limitations on re-opening final determinations under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.
GFH CAPITAL v DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Striking out appellate applications for procedural non-compliance (28 February 2017)
The litigation originated from a claim brought by GFH Capital Limited against its former employee, David Lawrence Haigh, alleging serious breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud. The Claimant asserted that the Defendant had orchestrated a scheme involving the issuance of false invoices to third…