Order · Technology and Construction Division
TCD 003/2022 Rafid Gourmet Investment In Commercial Enterprises & Management LLC v Dif Interior Decoration Co. LLC
A reference record of TCD 003/2022, 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: Construction Disputes
At a glance
| Claim number | TCD 003/2022 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Technology and Construction Division |
| Decision | Order |
| Before | Justice Michael Black |
| Date | 7 September 2023 |
| Date of issue | 7 September 2023 |
| Operative orders | 3 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 34 |
| Recitals | 3 |
Parties to TCD 003/2022
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Rafid Gourmet Investment In Commercial Enterprises & Management Llc | Claimant |
| Dif Interior Decoration Co. Llc | Defendant |
Decisions in TCD 003/2022
The DIFC Courts have published 6 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 24 November 2022 | Order |
| 29 March 2023 | Order |
| 19 May 2023 | Order |
| 25 May 2023 | Order |
| 16 August 2023 | Order |
| 7 September 2023 | Order |
Sums named in the order
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.
- AED 612,246
- AED 60,209
- AED 222,362
- AED 1,031,728
- AED 483,620
- AED 208,635
Authorities cited in TCD 003/2022
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. 7 of 2005 DIFC law
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 Practice Direction
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 38.7, RDC 38.8 — 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.
- 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
- SCT 346/2020 — Minian (Middle East) V Mibad Investments [2020] DIFC SCT 346 also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- 150/2016 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SC also cites DIFC Law No. 7 of 2005
- SCT 004/2017 — Hamza v Heidi Law Firm [2017] DIFC SCT 004 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 technology and construction division matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question TCD 003/2022 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.