LITT
Try LITT free
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — The high cost of misjudged cryptocurrency custody (26 October 2022)
The lawsuit centers on a failed cryptocurrency transaction involving the sale of 300 Bitcoin (BTC) by the Claimants, Gate Mena DMCC and Huobi Mena FZE, to a third party, Navarcon. The Claimants alleged that the First Defendant, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited, acted as an escrow agent and…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural adjustment to closing submission timelines (14 February 2022)
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes a two-day extension for closing submissions in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Pre-trial procedural adjustments and security for costs
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes the joinder of a second claimant and establishes a robust security for costs framework involving property undertakings and cash deposits.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Costs deferral and set-off protocols (16 November 2021)
Justice Sir Richard Field exercises judicial discretion to stay payment of successful costs applications pending trial, citing the Second Defendant’s unreasonable conduct regarding document production and evidence disposal.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline adjustment for witness evidence (25 October 2021)
The DIFC Technology and Construction Division formalizes a consent-based extension for the exchange of reply witness statements in the ongoing Huobi OTC DMCC litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural finality in cost settlements (19 October 2021)
The Registrar formally strikes out a prior cost assessment order following the successful private settlement of legal fees between the Claimant and the Second Defendant.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Finalizing cost assessments in TCD litigation
The litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and the defendants, Tabarak Investment Capital and Mr. Christian Thurner, represents a complex commercial dispute handled within the specialized Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts.
Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050: The Reach of Post-Award Interim Measures Under the 2025 Court Law
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC clarifies the scope of the DIFC’s supportive jurisdiction in the wake of a USD 600 million arbitral award. On January 22, 2026, H.E.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline adjustment for witness evidence (11 October 2021)
A consent order issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance formalizing a final-hour extension for the exchange of witness evidence in a high-stakes commercial dispute.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural recalibration of complex cryptocurrency litigation (04 October 2021)
A formal consent order adjusting critical evidentiary and expert witness timelines to accommodate the complex discovery requirements in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural refinement of disclosure obligations (12 September 2021)
A procedural order clarifying the scope of document production and the necessity of Statements of Truth for multi-party disclosure requests in the Technology and Construction Division.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural discipline in the Technology and Construction Division
The DIFC Court reinforces strict adherence to Case Management Orders, denying relief from sanctions for late document production filings while imposing financial penalties.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline management in the Technology and Construction Division (01 August 2021)
Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban grants a variation of time for compliance with existing case management obligations, reinforcing the court’s flexible approach to procedural deadlines in complex commercial litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Refining procedural timelines for complex TCD litigation (18 July 2021)
A consent order adjusting the procedural deadlines for eBundle filing and skeleton argument exchange in a high-stakes Technology and Construction Division dispute.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural adjustment for document production (08 July 2021)
A consent order refining the timeline for document production within the ongoing Technology and Construction Division litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Amended case management order following failed joinder (22 June 2021)
The litigation concerns a complex commercial dispute involving Huobi OTC DMCC as the Claimant, and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited alongside Mr. Christian Thurner as the First and Second Defendants, respectively.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Stay of procedural directions pending joinder application (07 June 2021)
A consent order issued by the Technology and Construction Division pausing the litigation timetable to accommodate the Second Defendant’s pending application for an extension of time and the joinder of additional parties.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — The limits of joinder in complex cryptocurrency litigation (03 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for joining non-parties under RDC Part 20, emphasizing that the availability of witness subpoenas renders joinder unnecessary for evidentiary purposes.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline management in complex cryptocurrency litigation (09 May 2021)
A consent order issued by the DIFC Registrar formalizing the deadline for the Second Defendant to file its defence, following a series of procedural extensions in the ongoing TCD litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Establishing procedural rigor in complex cryptocurrency litigation (04 February 2021)
A foundational case management order establishing the evidentiary and expert witness roadmap for complex digital asset disputes within the DIFC Technology and Construction Division.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Refining alternative service protocols in the Technology and Construction Division
The dispute centers on the procedural mechanics of serving legal process upon the Second Defendant in a claim initiated by Huobi OTC DMCC. Following the initial filing of the claim, the Claimant sought to ensure that the service of the Amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim complied…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Consent order on procedural amendments
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited, currently pending before the Technology and Construction Division. The Claimant, Huobi OTC DMCC, initiated the Application Notice on 17 August 2020, seeking to fundamentally alter the…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Formalizing TCD jurisdiction for complex commercial disputes
The dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited centers on the formal classification of the proceedings within the DIFC Court structure. Following the filing of the initial claim form on 4 March 2020, the Claimant sought to ensure that the matter was adjudicated within the…
GEORGIA CORPORATION v GAVINO SUPPLIES [2016] DIFC ARB 005 — The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in Award Enforcement (11 October 2016) [#2]
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for staying the enforcement of a final arbitral award, rejecting speculative claims of double recovery and improper discovery requests.