LITT
Try LITT free
KHALED SALEM MUSABEH HUMAID ALMHEIRI v MOHAMMAD EZELDDINE EL ARAJ [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural transfer from Part 8 to Part 7 (07 October 2021)
The dispute in CFI 057/2021 centered on the appropriate procedural vehicle for the Claimant, Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Almheiri, to pursue his claims against the two Defendants, Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj and John Cameron.
KHALED SALEM MUSABEH HUMAID ALMHEIRI v MOHAMMAD EZELDDINE EL ARAJ [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Consent order for settlement stay (22 August 2021)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Almheiri against two defendants, Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj and John Cameron. While the specific underlying commercial or civil grievance remains subject to ongoing private negotiations, the procedural posture of the case…
KHALED SALEM MUSABEH HUMAID ALMHEIRI v MOHAMMAD EZELDDINE EL ARAJ [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — De novo review of Registrar’s procedural discretion (28 July 2021)
The litigation centers on a high-value claim arising from alleged breaches of security agreements. The Claimant, Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Almheiri, initiated proceedings against two defendants, Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj and John Cameron, seeking substantial financial recovery.
KHALED SALEM MUSABEH HUMAID ALMHEIRI v MOHAMMED EZELDDINE EL ARAJ [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural strictness regarding time extensions (16 June 2021)
The dispute arises from the underlying proceedings in CFI 057/2021, where the Claimant, Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Almheiri, initiated an action against the First Defendant, Mohammed Ezelddine El Araj, and the Second Defendant, John Cameron.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Consent order for discontinuance (10 October 2021)
A definitive resolution of the dispute between Nancy Nagiub and En Vogue Beauty Center Ltd, resulting in the formal striking out of proceedings following a private settlement agreement.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — procedural management of expert evidence (31 March 2021)
A procedural consent order issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance to regulate the exchange of expert testimony in a professional liability dispute.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural timeline for expert evidence (10 March 2021)
A procedural consent order formalizing the exchange of expert testimony in the ongoing dispute between Nancy Nagiub and En Vogue Beauty Center.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Expert evidence admission and trial adjournment (09 February 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance prioritizes the substantive determination of liability over procedural rigidity by permitting late-stage expert dermatological evidence in a personal injury claim.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural extension for expert evidence (23 November 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a revised procedural timetable for expert evidence in a civil dispute, reflecting the parties' mutual agreement to extend filing deadlines.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — procedural timeline adjustment via consent order (09 November 2020)
The litigation in CFI 057/2019 involves a civil claim brought by Nancy Nagiub against En Vogue Beauty Center. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain outside the scope of this specific order, the dispute reached a juncture where the parties required an adjustment to the…
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural adjustment of expert evidence timelines (01 October 2020)
The litigation between Nancy Nagiub and En Vogue Beauty Center Ltd involves a dispute currently before the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the underlying substantive claims remain private, the procedural posture of the case necessitated a formal intervention by the Court to manage the timeline…
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — Compelling disclosure of sensitive personal records (30 September 2020)
The dispute centers on the Defendant’s application for the production of documents, which sought to pierce the veil of the Claimant’s private records to establish evidentiary support for their defense.
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural consent order for document production (17 September 2020)
The lawsuit, registered under case number CFI 057/2019, involves a claim brought by Nancy Nagiub against En Vogue Beauty Center. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain outside the scope of this specific procedural order, the current phase of the litigation centers on the…
NANCY NAGIUB v EN VOGUE BEAUTY CENTER [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural framework for medical negligence and loss of income claims (02 July 2020)
The lawsuit concerns a claim for damages brought by Nancy Nagiub against En Vogue Beauty Center Ltd, arising from allegations of medical negligence or professional malpractice. The core of the dispute centers on the Claimant’s contraction of an MRSA infection, which has necessitated a complex…
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Assessment of legal costs (22 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the quantum of recoverable legal costs following a contested application for assessment, mandating joint and several liability for the defendants.
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2021] DIFC CFI 057 — Registrar dismisses retrospective appeal extension (08 April 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the necessity of evidentiary support for procedural delays, dismissing a retrospective application for permission to appeal filed 53 days after the deadline.
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2020] DIFC CFI 057 — dismissal of appeal and oral hearing applications (20 December 2020)
The dispute centers on a claim brought by Basin Supply Corporation against Rouge LLC and Claude Barret regarding a Senior Secured Promissory Note executed in December 2016. Following an adverse judgment delivered on 6 September 2020, the Defendants sought to appeal the decision, claiming that the…
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2018] DIFC CFI 057 — enforcing loan agreements and personal guarantees against spurious jurisdictional challenges (06 September 2020)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to recover a USD 1.5 million loan provided to Rouge LLC in December 2016, which remained largely unpaid despite a personal guarantee provided by the Second Defendant, Claude Barret.
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROGUE [2019] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural withdrawal of legal representation (23 September 2019)
The litigation between Basin Supply Corporation and the Defendants, Rouge LLC and Claude Barret, reached a procedural impasse in September 2019. The law firm Afridi & Angell Legal Consultants, which had been acting on behalf of the Defendants, sought to terminate its professional relationship with…
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2019] DIFC CFI 057 — Disclosure obligations and the burden of production (17 January 2019)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s attempt to compel the production of documents from the Defendants, Rouge LLC and Claude Barret, during the pre-trial disclosure phase of CFI 057/2018.
BASIN SUPPLY CORPORATION v ROUGE [2018] DIFC CFI 057 — Procedural directions for trial preparation (28 November 2018)
The litigation concerns a commercial claim brought by Basin Supply Corporation against Rouge LLC and Clause Barret. While the underlying merits of the claim are not fully detailed in this procedural order, the court’s directions confirm that the dispute centers on the legal enforceability of a…
FURSA CONSULTING v AJAY SETHI SHAKTI CHAND SETHI [2024] DIFC CFI 056 — Renewed permission to appeal dismissed (25 July 2024)
The litigation centered on a contractual dispute arising from a Letter of Engagement between Fursa Consulting (the Claimant) and Ajay Sethi Shakti Chand Sethi (the Defendant). The Claimant was engaged to assist the Defendant in securing a buyout of existing debt obligations—totaling AED 45…
FURSA CONSULTING v AJAY SETHI SHAKTI CHAND SETHI [2024] DIFC CFI 056 — Dismissal of appeal and stay request (21 May 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reaffirms the high threshold for appellate intervention in contract interpretation disputes, dismissing a claimant's attempt to relitigate a failed success fee claim.
FURSA CONSULTING v AJAY SETHI SHAKTI CHAND SETHI [2023] DIFC CFI 056 — Withdrawal of appellate application (30 November 2023)
This order formalizes the procedural termination of an appellate challenge following the Claimant's decision to abandon its pursuit of permission to appeal a prior ruling by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani.