Menu
KBH represented the Defendant in a family dispute. The Defendant was the subject of a freezing and injunction order where there were extant proceedings in the Dubai Courts. The case was the first to consider the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction where there are ongoing proceedings in the Dubai Courts as well as the DIFC Courts’ power to grant a Black Swan injunction.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH is representing the Claimants in a financial mis-selling case. The proceedings are at the early stages. KBH has successfully defended a strike out and immediate judgment application. The judgment is the first reported case to consider whether the limitation period of 6 years, as set out in the Article 38 of the Court Law No. 10 of 2004 contains an exception for fraud in every case, or only in cases where the applicable law expressly provides that the limitation period will be suspended or extended to run from the date of knowledge in cases where fraud is alleged.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH successfully represented the First Defendant in the first cryptocurrency case in the Technology and Construction Division of the DIFC Courts. The claim related to the transfer and storage of bitcoins and the DIFC Courts determined (in line with other common law jurisdictions) that Bitcoins are (tangible) property. It is one of the few cases in the world that addresses the issue of safe transfer of cryptocurrency between the buyer and seller and the obligations owed to a custodian of the cryptocurrency. The case highlighted the importance of digital asset disputes in the DIFC Courts, and in December 2022 the DIFC Courts unveiled the launch of a new set of industry-first specialised rules for its newly formed Digital Economy Court Division.
KBH continued to represent the First Defendant in the DIFC Court of Appeal.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH successfully represented the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Defendants in a claim pursuant to alleged obligations under personal guarantees.
Click here for the full judgment.
KBH acted on behalf of the Defendant in successfully applying for a security for costs order.
KBH acted for the Claimant against the owner of the world’s largest online gambling company and its financial advisers, relating to equity commitment letters filed in support of a private bid to acquire a global internet gaming company, Amaya Inc.
KBH acted for the Defendants in successfully discharging an injunction before former Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel, in a claim for damages arising from a breach of warranty.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the Claimants in proceedings before the former Chief Justice Michael Hwang, former Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore, in a claim involving a breach and subsequent termination of an SPA in the absence of a contractual termination clause in the SPA.
KBH acted for the Respondent at the return date hearing, pro-bono, in respect of an application for a freezing injunction and search order before the former DCJ Sir John Chadwick.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the Claimant in a claim arising out of a Reservation Agreement for an off-plan purchase of a unit in the Park Towers Development within the DIFC.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the Claimant in respect of a claim for the breach of an SPA and the enforceability of a force majeure clause.
KBH acted for the Second and Third Defendants in respect of a breach of a services contract, before the former Deputy Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts, Sir David Steel, former Judge of the Commercial and Admiralty Courts, England & Wales and the former Chairman of the European Commercial Judges Forum.
This case developed important aspects of DIFC law including the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts and the DIFC’s law of obligations (Article 56 of DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005.)
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the Claimants in the largest financial mis-selling case in the GCC region before the former Deputy Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts, Sir John Chadwick, formerly the Lord Justice of Appeal in England & Wales.
This case remains one of the most ground-breaking cases in the DIFC which developed the law in multiples areas including matters of jurisdiction and costs.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted on behalf of a liquidator of various DIFC and US companies in successfully resisting a jurisdiction challenge brought by a Swiss bank in resisting claims by the liquidators to have certain pledges made by fraudulent directors declared invalid as well as subsequent enforcement proceedings against the Bank in Switzerland.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the Defendants in seeking a declaration as to the applicability of the Treaty between UK and UAE on Judicial Assistance. In addition, KBH represented the Second Defendant in a Part 71 application.
Click here for the full judgment
Instructed on behalf of the Claimant in proceedings in the High Court in London in one of the highest priced match-fixing cases in cricket.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/cairns-v-modi-judgment.pdf
KBH acts for a leading mining executive in a claim for $30m of lost bonus, and successfully defended a jurisdiction challenge.
KBH acted for for the Managing Partner of DWF in relation to a contractual claim.
KBH acted for the Claimant in his claim for termination benefits. Setting a precedent on the applicability of a penalty payment under Article 18(2) of the old Employment Law, where the employers failed to pay the employee’s termination entitlements within 14 days. The Court of Appeal affirmed the construction of Article 18(2), which resulted in a change of the law.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH actedfor the Defendant in a successful application for security for costs against a former employer
1. Raul Silva v United Investment Bank [2014] DIFC CA 004
Bushra Ahmed (instructed by Stephenson Harwood (Middle East) LLP acted for the Respondent before the DIFC Court of Appeal as to the test for ‘reasonable employer’ under the old DIFC Employment Law.
KBH acted for a pregnant employee in relation to claims of discrimination.
KBH acted for the Claimant in respect of a breach of an employment contract.
Click here for the full judgment
KBH acted for the employee in relation to what amounts to a ‘reasonable employer’ under Article 59A of the DIFC Employment Law.
Commercial Advisory Work