Order With Reasons · Court of First Instance
CFI 089/2023 Jeffrey Stone v (1) Abhi Fintech Limited (2) Abhi Limited
A reference record of CFI 089/2023, 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 | CFI 089/2023 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Court of First Instance |
| Decision | Order With Reasons |
| Before | H.E. Justice Andrew Moran |
| Date | 16 April 2025 |
| Date of issue | 16 April 2025 |
| Operative orders | 4 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 30 |
| Recitals | 5 |
Parties to CFI 089/2023
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Jeffrey Stone | Claimant |
| (2) Abhi Limited | Defendants |
Decisions in CFI 089/2023
The DIFC Courts have published 15 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 7 February 2024 | Order |
| 22 February 2024 | Order |
| 10 May 2024 | Order |
| 25 June 2024 | Order |
| 23 August 2024 | Order |
| 5 September 2024 | Order |
| 16 September 2024 | Order |
| 18 September 2024 | Order |
| 23 September 2024 | Order |
| 26 September 2024 | Order |
| 1 October 2024 | Order |
| 3 October 2024 | Order |
| 14 October 2024 | Order |
| 1 November 2024 | Order |
| 16 April 2025 | 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 68,046.67
- USD 170,000
Authorities cited in CFI 089/2023
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
- DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005 DIFC law
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 31.12, RDC 31.14 — 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.
- SCT 391/2024 — Numair v Naufil [2024] DIFC SCT 391 also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- CFI 004/2024 — CFI 004/2024 Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs And Tax Adminis also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- TCD 003/2022 — TCD 003/2022 Rafid Gourmet Investment In Commercial Enterprises & Ma also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- CFI 044/2022 — Lufithi v Larties [2022] DIFC CFI 044 also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- CA 011/2021 — Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam v Expresso Telecom Group [2021] DIFC CA also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- SCT 186/2021 — (1) Lajvati (2) Laghuvi v (1) Lankesh (2) Larraj [2021] DIFC SCT 186 also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
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 first instance matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question CFI 089/2023 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.