Tom Montagu-Smith KC and Ravi Jackson successful in long-running DIFC shareholder dispute
On 6 April 2026, the DIFC Court handed down judgment in Albulaihid & Anr v Shehata & Ors [2023] DIFC CFI 079. The proceedings concern a long-running dispute between shareholders in Health Insights, a business which provides hospital information management systems (“HIMS”) to customers across the Middle East.
In a comprehensive judgment, H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere upheld the Claimants’ claims that the Second Defendant, Health Insights FZ-LLC, owned the HIMS software that the First Defendant, Mr. Nasser Shehata, had caused to be transferred to the Third Defendant, a Malaysian company which he wholly owned and controlled. The Judge found that Mr. Shehata had an undisclosed material conflict of interest in the transaction and ordered that it be set aside. He further ordered that Mr. Shehata should account to Health Insights FZ-LLC for any profit, gain or benefit that he had realised as a result of the transaction. In doing so, the Judge found that a number of documents relied upon by Mr. Shehata as evidence that he owned the HIMS software were not authentic and had been created for the purpose of the proceedings.
The Judge also found that various payments made by Mr. Shehata to his personal bank accounts from Health Insights FZ-LLC’s bank accounts were transactions in which Mr. Shehata had an undisclosed material conflict of interest and ordered Mr. Shehata to account to Health Insights FZ-LLC for any profit, gain or benefit he had realised.
In addition, the Judge dismissed Mr. Shehata’s counterclaim against the Claimants for unfair prejudice and alleged breaches of their directors’ duties.
The judgment contains helpful guidance on the approach the DIFC Court will take to: (i) assessing the reliability of witness testimony; (ii) drawing adverse inferences; (iii) assessing the authenticity of documents; (iv) the rule in Browne v Dunn; and (v) the level of particularity required to plead, and the substantive elements of, an unfair prejudice claim (see [84]-[89], [163]-[165], [170], [484]-[489] and [493]-[495]). The judgment can be accessed here.
Tom Montagu-Smith KC and Ravi Jackson acted for the successful Claimants, instructed by Aimy Roshan and Khadija El-Leithy of White & Case LLP.
