Order With Reasons · Arbitration Division
ARB 017-2020 ARB 021-2021 (1) Cesfin Ventures LLC (2) Cessna Finance Corporation (Acting Via ITS Attorney, Cesfin Ventures LLC) v (1) Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC (2) Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC And (1) Cesfin Ventures LLC (2) Cessna Finance Corporation (Acting Via ITS Attorney, Cesfin Ventures LLC) v (1) Ali Hamel Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi (2) Khalifa Khadem Al Ghaith Al Qubaisi (3) Six Star Representation Of Companies LLC
A reference record of ARB 017-2020, 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: Arbitration
At a glance
| Claim number | ARB 017-2020 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Arbitration Division |
| Decision | Order With Reasons |
| Before | Justice Wayne Martin |
| Date | 24 March 2022 |
| Date of issue | 24 March 2022 |
| Operative orders | 4 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 162 |
| Recitals | 12 |
Parties to ARB 017-2020
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| (Acting Via Its Attorney, Cesfin Ventures Llc) | Claimants |
| (Acting Via Its Attorney, Cesfin Ventures Llc) | Claimants |
| (3) Six Star Representation Of Companies Llc | Defendants |
Decisions in ARB 017-2020
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 |
|---|---|
| 13 December 2021 | Order |
| 24 March 2022 | Order |
| 24 March 2022 | Order |
Sums named in the order with reasons
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 43,201,971.10
- USD 187
- USD 88,596,077
- AED 50,000
- USD 88,596,077.00
- AED 102
Authorities cited in ARB 017-2020
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
- Arbitration Law DIFC law
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 25.1, RDC 25.10, RDC 51.2, RDC 52.1, RDC 52.14 — 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 005/2021 — Lachesis v Lacrosse [2021] DIFC CA 005 also cites Arbitration Law
- ARB 030/2020 — ARB 030/2020 (1) Liman (2) Ludi v (1) Layli (2) Luni also cites Arbitration Law
- CFI 042/2021 — Lutyans v Litha [2021] DIFC CFI 042 also cites Arbitration Law
- CA 007/2020 — Lahela v Lameez [2020] DIFC CA 007 also cites Arbitration Law
- ARB 006/2021 — (1) Medimpact International LLC (2) Medimpact International Hk Limit also cites Arbitration Law
- ARB 008/2020 — Limsa (Pty) Ltd v (1) Lordon A Trading Platform Of Dubai Multi Commo also cites Arbitration Law
Primary source
Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.
Acting on a arbitration division matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question ARB 017-2020 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.