Privacy Settings

Claim No: ARB 009/2023

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MIRIFA

Claimant/Applicant

and

(1) MAHUR
(2) MEISON
(3) MEPUR

Defendants/Respondents

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 9 August 2024 for specific asset disclosure (the “Specific Disclosure Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. ARB-009-2023/9 dated 26 August 2024 (the “Extension Application”) seeking an order for an extension of time until 14 October 2024 to swear and serve on the Claimant an affidavit setting out the disclosure of asset information and documents pursuant to the Specific Disclosure Order (the “Third Affidavit”)

AND UPON reviewing the Court materials

AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Extension Application is denied.

2. The Defendant shall serve forthwith, and without any further delay, on the Claimant the Third Affidavit pursuant to the terms of the Specific Disclosure Order.

3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs related to the Extension Application on a standard basis, to be assessed by the Registrar, if not agreed.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date: 1 October 2024
At: 10am

1. By Application dated 26 August 2024, Mepur (the “Defendant”), sought the Court’s permission pursuant to RDC 4.2(1) for an extension of time to swear and serve on Mirifa’s (the “Claimant”) legal representatives the Third Affidavit pursuant to the Specific Disclosure Order until 4:00 pm (GST) on 14 October 2024 (“Extension Application”). In essence, the basis of the Defendant’s Extension Application was that the disclosure ordered is extensive and onerous, that it involved third parties, and an extension of time would not result in any prejudice to the Claimant.

2. The Claimant opposes the Extension Application noting that the Defendant’s Application Notice of 26 August 2024 requesting a 7-week extension until 14 October 2024 was not filed with evidence from counsel or a member of the counsel’s team and did not present any new reasons or evidence to justify the requested extension.

3. Additionally, the Claimant submits that a further delay will be prejudicial by (i) preventing them from obtaining a full picture of the Third Defendant’s assets available for enforcement; (ii) impeding their ability to police the Third Defendant’s compliance with the worldwide freezing order; and (iii) forcing them to incur significant time and costs to extract asset information that should have been disclosed over a year ago.

4. Having reviewed the Court materials, I agree with the Claimant that the Defendant has not provided adequate reasons that justify granting the Extension Application. As the Claimant correctly identifies, the Defendant’s current Extension Application seeks a 6-week extension from 1 September 2024, effectively extending the deadline by 7 weeks from 23 August 2024 and 9 weeks from the date of the Specific Disclosure Order.

5. Given the foregoing and the Defendant’s history of making late and incomplete asset disclosures, and the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the Defendant for the Extension Application, the Claimant is entitled to receive the Third Affidavit pursuant to the terms of my Specific Disclosure Order forthwith and without any further delays.

6. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the Extension Application to be assessed by the Registrar, if not agreed.