LITT
Try LITT free
RASMALA INVESTMENTS v SAURABH DHALL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Appellate reversal of Small Claims Tribunal judgment (02 March 2009)
The litigation originated from a claim brought by Saurabh Dhall against Rasmala Investments Limited, which was initially adjudicated within the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). While the specific underlying commercial grievance—whether contractual, employment-related, or tortious—remained secondary to…
SAURABH DHALL v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Dismissal of procedural application (18 February 2009)
The litigation between Saurabh Dhall and Rasmala Investments Limited originated as a dispute brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance. While the specific underlying merits of the primary claim are not detailed in the Order, the immediate matter before the court on 18 February 2009 concerned…
SAURABH DHALL v RASMALA INVESTMENTS [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Stay of execution pending appeal (09 February 2009)
The litigation between Saurabh Dhall and Rasmala Investments Limited centers on a procedural impasse following an initial order issued by the Court of First Instance. The claimant, Saurabh Dhall, sought to enforce a judgment or order against the defendant, Rasmala Investments Limited.
Dr. Urs Rechsteiner v Diwan Capital [2010] DIFC CFI 003 — Consent order concluding litigation (14 March 2010)
The litigation initiated by Dr. Urs Rechsteiner against Diwan Capital Limited under claim number CFI 003/2008 represented a formal legal challenge within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
DR. URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural stay and costs management (08 October 2009)
The litigation between Dr. Urs Rechsteiner and Diwan Capital Limited reached a juncture where the primary focus shifted from the merits of the underlying claim to the mechanics of cost recovery.
DR. URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2009] DIFC CFI 003 — Interim order for security for costs (26 August 2009)
In the proceedings under CFI 003/2008, the Defendant, Diwan Capital, sought an order for security for costs following an application filed on 20 July 2009. The dispute, which originated in the Court of First Instance, reached a critical procedural juncture when the court evaluated the financial…
URS RECHSTEINER v DIWAN CAPITAL [2008] DIFC CFI 003 — Procedural adjournment by consent (26 October 2008)
This consent order formalizes a temporary stay of proceedings in the Court of First Instance, providing the parties a window for resolution before the resumption of litigation.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural stay by consent (30 April 2024)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI 002/2024 involves a commercial dispute between BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, a prominent financial services firm, and 3IQ Corporation.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension for ADR (18 April 2024)
The litigation involves BHM Capital Financial Services PSC as the Claimant and 3iQ Corporation as the Defendant. While the specific underlying commercial dispute remains confidential, the matter is currently before the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 002/2024.
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension by consent (01 April 2024)
The litigation under case number CFI 002/2024 involves a commercial dispute between BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, acting as the Claimant, and 3IQ Corporation, the Defendant. While the underlying substantive claims remain to be fully ventilated in subsequent filings, the current procedural…
BHM CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES v 3IQ CORPORATION [2024] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural extension by consent (07 March 2024)
The litigation initiated under case number CFI 002/2024 involves BHM Capital Financial Services PSC, acting as the Claimant, and 3IQ Corporation, named as the Defendant. While the substantive merits of the claim remain pending, the matter has reached the stage of pleadings, specifically the…
PARKING DISTRICT SOLUTIONS v THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY [2022] DIFC CFI 002 — Strict enforcement of anti-assignment clauses and contractual termination rights (31 January 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that contractual rights cannot be unilaterally transferred via novation without the counterparty's consent, and that "without cause" termination clauses remain absolute.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Order of Discontinuance (05 August 2021)
The litigation, registered under case number CFI 002/2020, involved a commercial dispute between Emirates Retakaful Limited (the Claimant) and Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC (the Defendant).
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Consent order staying jurisdictional challenge (31 May 2021)
The litigation concerns a commercial dispute between Emirates Retakaful Limited and Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC. The matter reached the DIFC Court of First Instance under Claim No.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Consent order staying jurisdictional challenge (20 April 2021)
The dispute arises from a commercial insurance or reinsurance relationship where the Claimant, Emirates Retakaful Limited, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC, under case number CFI 002/2020.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural timeline for jurisdictional challenge (13 January 2021)
The dispute concerns a challenge brought by Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company (ADNIC) against the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts in a claim initiated by Emirates Retakaful Limited.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2021] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural timeline for jurisdiction challenges (04 January 2021)
The litigation concerns a claim brought by Emirates Retakaful Limited against Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company PSC. The dispute reached a critical procedural juncture following the Defendant’s filing of an Acknowledgment of Service on 9 December 2020, in which the Defendant formally signaled…
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2020] DIFC CFI 002 — Extension of time for service of Claim Form (27 October 2020)
The dispute, registered under CFI 002/2020, involves a claim brought by Emirates Retakaful Limited against Abu Dhabi National Insurance Company. At the heart of the matter was a procedural impasse regarding the service of the Claim Form.
EMIRATES RETAKAFUL v ABU DHABI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2020] DIFC CFI 002 — Extension of time for service of Claim Form (27 July 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance exercises its discretion to grant a significant extension of time for the service of a Claim Form, ensuring the procedural viability of the Claimant's action against the Defendant.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2020] DIFC CFI 002 — Strike out for failure to provide security for costs (15 March 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance terminated proceedings after the Claimant failed to satisfy a $1.3 million security for costs order, ruling that the prospect of future compliance was negligible.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2020] DIFC CFI 002 — Final strike out of long-running litigation (23 February 2020)
The litigation, registered as CFI 002/2017, involved a complex series of allegations brought by KBC Aldini Capital Limited against David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp, and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2019] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural variation of case management timelines (19 December 2019)
KBC Aldini Capital Limited initiated this application on 12 December 2019 to modify the existing procedural framework established by the Re-Amended Case Management Conference (CMC) Order, which had been issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi on 13 November 2019.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2019] DIFC CFI 002 — Re-amended case management and procedural consolidation (13 November 2019)
This re-amended case management order formalizes the procedural roadmap for a complex multi-party dispute, establishing strict timelines for document production, expert evidence, and trial preparation.
KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2019] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural standards for document disclosure (24 October 2019)
The litigation in CFI 002/2017 involves a complex web of claims and counterclaims, with KBC Aldini Capital Limited acting as the Claimant against David Baazov (First Defendant/Part 21 Claimant), Canaccord Genuity Corp (Second Defendant), and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited (Third Defendant).