Judgment · Court of Appeal
(1) Ashok Kumar Goel (2) Sudhir Goyel (3) Manan Goel (4) Prerit Goel v Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited [2021] DIFC CA 002
A reference record of CA 002/2021, drawn from the decision's own text. It sets out who the parties were, who decided it, what the decision did and where to read it. It does not summarise the court's reasoning or offer advice on it.
Where cases like this arise in our work: DIFC Courts Litigation
At a glance
| Claim number | CA 002/2021 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Court of Appeal |
| Decision | Judgment |
| Date | 21 September 2021 |
| Date of issue | 21 September 2021 |
| Operative orders | 5 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 84 |
| Recitals | 4 |
Parties to CA 002/2021
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| (4) Prerit Goel | Appellants |
| Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited | Respondent |
Decisions in CA 002/2021
The DIFC Courts have published 3 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 26 April 2021 | Judgment |
| 21 September 2021 | Judgment |
| 21 September 2021 | Judgment |
Sums named in the judgment
These figures appear in the text of the decision. They are reproduced as amounts only — what each relates to is set out in the judgment itself.
- USD 48,669.48
- USD 96,891
- USD 96,338.95
Authorities cited in CA 002/2021
The decision refers to the following. They are listed as cited — what each was relied on for is set out in the decision itself.
Legislation and practice directions
- Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014 Practice Direction
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 1.6, RDC 4.16, RDC 17.43, RDC 36.45, RDC 38.7, RDC 38.10, RDC 38.28, RDC 38.71, RDC 39.25 — see the RDC.
Other decisions citing the same authority
Records of other DIFC Courts decisions that cite at least one of the same instruments. Shared authority is not shared reasoning — each decision turns on its own facts.
- CA 010/2020 — (1) Melody (2) Molly v Melance [2020] DIFC CA 010 also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
- CFI 066/2020 — CFI 066/2020 Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited V (1) Ashok Kumar G also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
- ARB 008/2020 — Limsa (Pty) Ltd v (1) Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commo also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
- CA-002-2019 — Mashreq Al Islami Finance Company Pjsc v Mr Babar Rehman [2019] DIFC also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
- CFI 015/2014 — CFI 015/2014 Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners Limite also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
- ARB 015/2026 — ARB 015/2026 ARB 027/2026 Princeton v Persephone also cites Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014
Primary source
Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.
Acting on a court of appeal matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question CA 002/2021 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.