LITT
Try LITT free
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural adjustment to document production timelines (08 July 2021)
The litigation, registered under TCD 001/2020, involves the Claimant, Huobi OTC DMCC, and two Defendants: Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Mr. Christian Thurner. The dispute centers on complex commercial and technological claims that have necessitated rigorous case management within the…
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Balancing security for costs against the risk of stifling an appeal (15 June 2023)
The Claimants sought a significant extension of the deadline to provide security for costs, originally ordered on 5 May 2023, by arguing that they lacked the immediate liquidity to satisfy the AED 1,551,591.99 requirement.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural stay on payment obligations (30 May 2023)
The litigation, which has seen extensive procedural development under case number TCD 001/2020, involves a high-stakes commercial dispute between the Claimants—Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE—and the Respondents, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Stay of cost assessment pending appeal (18 May 2023)
This consent order formalizes the suspension of detailed cost assessment proceedings in the Technology and Construction Division, ensuring procedural alignment with the ongoing appellate review of the underlying judgment.
GATE MENA v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — The high threshold for staying costs orders pending appeal (13 February 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the stringent evidentiary requirements for obtaining a stay of execution on costs orders, affirming that the "fruits of victory" principle prevails absent clear evidence of financial hardship.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2023] DIFC TCD 001 — Permission to appeal and the threshold for challenging factual findings (07 February 2023)
The underlying litigation, TCD 001/2020, concerns a high-stakes commercial dispute where the Claimants, Gate Mena DMCC (formerly Huobi OTC DMCC) and Huobi Mena FZE, sought damages against Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Christian Thurner.
GATE MENA DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2022] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (08 November 2022)
The Technology and Construction Division grants a critical procedural extension, allowing the Appellants to formalize their appellate challenge in a complex commercial dispute involving cryptocurrency entities.
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.
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.