Judgment · Court of Appeal
Expresso Telecom Group Ltd v Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla [2022] DIFC CA 002
A reference record of CA 002/2022, 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 002/2022 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Court of Appeal |
| Decision | Judgment |
| Before | The Court Of Appeal |
| Date | 2 September 2022 |
| Date of issue | 2 September 2022 |
| Operative orders | 2 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 86 |
| Recitals | 10 |
Parties to CA 002/2022
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Expresso Telecom Group Ltd | Appellant |
| Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla | Respondent |
Decisions in CA 002/2022
The DIFC Courts have published 2 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 23 June 2022 | Order |
| 2 September 2022 | 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 379,511.67
- USD 480,402.17
- USD 1,052.30
- USD 71,000
- USD 140,957
- USD 8,241
Authorities cited in CA 002/2022
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. 4 of 2005 DIFC law
- DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005 DIFC law
- DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012 DIFC law
- DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019 DIFC law
- Employment Law DIFC law
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 011/2021 — Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam v Expresso Telecom Group [2021] DIFC CA also cites DIFC Law No. 4 of 2005
- CFI 001/2016 — Mr. Giovanni v Gisselle Co. Advocates And Legal Consultants [2016] D also cites DIFC Law No. 4 of 2005
- SCT 549/2019 — Loston v Liuna Market Restaurant And Lounge [2019] DIFC SCT 549 also cites DIFC Law No. 4 of 2005
- SCT 363/2019 — Kazuki v Kaprice and CO. [2019] DIFC SCT 363 also cites DIFC Law No. 4 of 2005
- SCT 359/2019 — Kyle v The Kaitlyn Investment Office [2019] DIFC SCT 359 also cites DIFC Law No. 4 of 2005
- SCT 342/2019 — Josey v Jerome [2019] DIFC SCT 342 also cites DIFC Law No. 4 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 appeal matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question CA 002/2022 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.