Judgment · Court of Appeal
Frontline Development Partners Limited v Asif Hakim Adil [2016] DIFC CA 006
A reference record of CA-006-2016, 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-006-2016 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Court of Appeal |
| Decision | Judgment |
| Date | 20 March 2017 |
| Date of issue | 20 March 2017 |
| Operative orders | 0 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 37 |
| Recitals | 2 |
Parties to CA-006-2016
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Frontline Development Partners Limited | Defendant |
| Asif Hakim Adil | Claimant |
| This Dispute Arose Out Of An Employment Contract Made Between Asif Hakim Adil (The “ | Respondent |
| ”) And Frontline Development Partners Limited (The “ | Appellant |
Decisions in CA-006-2016
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 |
|---|---|
| 27 October 2016 | Order |
| 31 October 2016 | Order |
| 20 March 2017 | 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 359,411.12
- USD 1,643.84
- AED 359,411.12
- EUR 143,322.70
- USD 156,542.78
Authorities cited in CA-006-2016
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. 3 of 2012 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.
- SCT 004/2017 — Hamza v Heidi Law Firm [2017] DIFC SCT 004 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
- SCT 145/2016 — Halsey v Halina DIFC Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 145 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
- SCT 184/2016 — Ginny v Graeme Consulting Service DIFC [2016] DIFC SCT 184 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
- xxxx — Griet v Guido LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 172 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
- SCT xxxx — Genager v Greet Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 161 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
- SCT 086/2016 — George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086 also cites DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012
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-006-2016 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.