NOURA LAWYERS
Speak with a partner

Order With Reasons · Court of First Instance

CFI 029/2018 CA 005/2022 CA 006/2022 The Industrial Group Ltd v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid

A reference record of CFI 029/2018, 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 numberCFI 029/2018
CourtDIFC Courts — Court of First Instance
DecisionOrder With Reasons
BeforeRegistrar Ayesha Bin Kalban
Date30 October 2023
Date of issue30 October 2023
Operative orders2
Numbered paragraphs34
Recitals4

Parties to CFI 029/2018

As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.

PartyRole
The Industrial Group LtdClaimant
Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil HamidDefendant

Decisions in CFI 029/2018

The DIFC Courts have published 33 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.

DateType
14 August 2018Order
25 October 2018Order
16 January 2019Order
31 January 2019Order
28 March 2019Order
16 April 2019Order
16 July 2019Order
5 September 2019Order
24 September 2019Order
22 October 2019Order
4 November 2019Order
11 December 2019Order
18 March 2020Order
27 May 2020Order
26 October 2020Order
2 November 2020Order
10 March 2021Order
15 September 2021Order
6 April 2022Judgment
21 April 2022Order
25 May 2022Order
26 May 2022Order
3 June 2022Order
3 June 2022Order
17 June 2022Order
4 August 2022Order
20 October 2022Order
10 March 2023Order
24 March 2023Order
11 May 2023Order
26 May 2023Order
23 June 2023Order
30 October 2023Order

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 29,164.08
  • USD 37,984.21
  • USD 370,759.80
  • USD 296,607.84
  • USD 192,795.10
  • USD 296,201.25

Authorities cited in CFI 029/2018

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

Rules of the DIFC Courts applied

RDC 1.6, RDC 38.17, RDC 38.18, RDC 38.19 — see the RDC.

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.

  • SCT 335/2023 — Marif v Methur [2023] DIFC SCT 335 also cites Employment Law
  • CFI 015/2019 — CFI 015/2019 Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam v Expresso Telecom Group Lt also cites Employment Law
  • SCT 272/2023 — Mirmi v Mesaab Tehcnology Limited [2023] DIFC SCT 272 also cites Employment Law
  • SCT 267/2023 — Mufto v Meket [2023] DIFC SCT 267 also cites Employment Law
  • SCT 176/2023 — Mrutio v Maqit Restaurant [2023] DIFC SCT 176 also cites Employment Law
  • SCT 207/2023 — Mojita v Mocka Restaurant [2023] DIFC SCT 207 also cites Employment Law

Primary source

Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.

  • CFI 029/2018 CA 005/2022 CA 006/2022 The Industrial Group Ltd v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid — the decision as published DIFC Courts
  • DIFC Courts judgments & orders — the register this decision is listed in DIFC Courts

Acting on a court of first instance matter

This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question CFI 029/2018 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.

Speak to us