Privacy Settings

Claim Nos. CFI 026/2010; 008/2011; 009/2011;

010/2011; 014/2011; 015/2011;

016/2011; 017/2011; 018/2011;

and 019/2011

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Before Justice Sir John Chadwick

Between:

ANNA DADIC

Claimant

and

(1) DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY

(2) DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE

(3) THE STATE OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Defendants

Hearing:19 September 2011

Parties: The Claimant, Ms Anna Dadic, did not appear

Mr Graham Lovett of Clifford Chance for the Defendants

Dubai International Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre

JUDGMENT

Revised from transcript and approved

2. On 14 July 2011, Ms Dadic made an application, reference 041/2011, in which she stated that she intended to apply for "final agreed orders" — a draft of the Orders sought being attached to that application — in all the matters to which I have referred. The application notice states that it is brought pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Order made on 22 June 2011, The application notice extends over some 31 pages; but there is no indication in that notice as to the basis upon which it is said that the Order of 22 June 2011 was not properly made. Ms Dadic relies only on what she describes as "final agreed orders". Those are orders which she asserts were agreed by the Defendants. There is no material which supports her assertion that any such orders were agreed by the Defendants. Ms Dadic has not appeared today to pursue her application 041/2011. The position, therefore, is that my Order of 22 June 2011 stands.

3. The reasons which led me to make that Order were given orally and in open court on 22 June 2011. Subsequently, my judgment was transcribed. The transcription, as revised and approved, was issued on 17 July 2011. After describing the claims made by Ms Dadic in the proceedings that were before me, I said this, at paragraphs 22 and 23 in the revised transcript:

4. At Paragraph 29 of the revised transcript, I ruled that the Defendants were to have their costs in relation to the matters struck out: that is to say, in relation to the proceedings CFI 017/2011, 018/2011 and 019/2011. I said this:

5. Justice David Williams delivered judgment in CFI 026/2010 on 20 July 2011. He refused Ms Dadic permission to pursue the judicial review which was sought in those proceedings. At paragraph 50 of his judgment he said this:

He recorded, at paragraph 52 of his judgment, that Ms Dadic's application for permission to proceed with judicial review proceedings was totally without merit.

6. Effect was given to Justice David Williams' decision by an Order made on 19 August 2011. On the same day, but by a separate Order, the Court directed that the costs of claim CFI 026/2010 — including the costs of the application under reference 026/2011, were to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by the Claimant within 14 days. The parties were given permission to apply within seven days to vary that Order; and it was directed that any application for that purpose be heard in the week commencing 18 September 2011.

7. Following the judgment of Justice David Williams, the Defendants, Dubai International Financial Centre and Dubai International Financial Centre Authority, made applications for the dismissal of the proceedings in CFI 008/2011, 009/2011, 010/2011, 014/2011 and 016/2011, for an order for an assessment of their costs in those proceedings and for assessment of their costs in proceedings 017/2011, 018/2011 and 019/2011. On 6 September 2011 the Court sent an email to the representatives of the Defendants and to Ms Dadic indicating that the Registry proposed to list the adjourned hearings in CFI 008/2011, 009/2011, 010/2011, 014/2011 and 016/2011 on 19 September 2011 or 21 September 2011; and asking the parties to confirm their availability for either of those dates. It appears from a note on the Court file, that, on 8 September 2011 a Court Officer attended at Ms Dadic's place of residence and handed her a copy of that email; and that she informed him that she would be contacting the Registry to discuss the matter.

8. The Defendants' representatives had indicated, by email sent on 6 September 2011, that, of the dates offered for the adjourned hearing, they would prefer 19 September 2011. The Court gave notice to Ms Dadic on 11 September 2011, that the Registry had listed the adjourned hearing for 10.00am on 19 September; that is to say, for hearing this morning. Her response to that was by email of the 12 September 2011 to the Court. She wrote:

The Court responded, by email on the same day, referring Ms Dadic to Rule 36.28 of the RDC and inviting her to make her submissions at the hearing at 10.00am on 19 September.

9. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that Ms Dadic has been given proper notice of the hearing this morning. She has not appeared and the Court has had no communication from her to indicate that she has been delayed or is otherwise unable to attend. I am satisfied, given the history of non-appearance in the past and her assertion that there are no hearings in these proceedings, that she did not intend to come to Court for these adjourned hearings and that, accordingly, it was appropriate to proceed in her absence.

10. I am satisfied, also, on reading the application 041/2011 (which Ms Dadic seeks to have dealt with without a hearing) that there is no reason to postpone the order that I would otherwise make pending the consideration of her application in that notice.

11. The first question, therefore, is whether the claims in CFI 008/2011, 009/2011 and 010/2011 and the related claims — or, as I described them in my earlier judgment, the ancillary claims — in CFI 014/2011 and 016/2011 should now be dismissed. In the passage from my earlier judgment to which I have already referred, I indicated that there was a substantial overlap between the assertions made in those proceedings and the contentions that were before Justice David Williams in CFI 026/2010. A more complete list would show that paragraphs 4.7 and 5 of the Specific Particulars of Claim in 026/2010 are reproduced (almost in their entirety) in Part C of each of claims CFI 008/2011, 009/2011 and 010/2011; that Part D of the Specific Particulars of Claim is almost entirely reproduced in Part D of claim CFI 008/2011; that Part D of the Specific Particulars of Claim is almost entirely reproduced in Part E of the claim in CFI 009/2011; and that Part F of the Specific Particulars of Claim is almost entirely reproduced in Part E of claim CFI 010/2011.

12. I am satisfied that, for the reasons which Justice David Williams gave in his judgment in CFI 026/2010, there is no prospect that the claims in CFI 008/2011, 009/2011 and 010/2011 could succeed; and that accordingly the claims in CFI 014/2011 and 016/2011 would fail also. In those circumstances the claims in CFI 008/2011, 009/2011, 010/2011, 014/2011 and 016/2011 should be dismissed: those claims should be dismissed on the basis that, to pursue them, would be an abuse of process in the circumstances that these matters have already been litigated. Accordingly I make the orders sought.

13. The question, then, is whether the Defendants should have their costs of those proceedings. I am satisfied that they should have those costs and that they should have them on an indemnity basis. Ms Dadic has continued to seek to pursue claims which this Court has described, on a number of occasions now, as being totally without merit. Her action in doing so is an abuse of process and, in those circumstances, she should pay costs incurred as a result of that abuse of process on a full indemnity basis.

14. I am asked to assess those costs and also to assess the costs in claims CFI 017/2011, 018/2011 and 019/2011. Statements of Costs have been put before me which show that a very considerable amount of time has been spent by the Defendants' lawyers in these matters. In particular, a total of some 10 hours has been spent on "Attendance on others" in circumstances in which, as was explained to me this morning, those "others" are members of the attorney's firm. A total of some 81 hours has been spent on the documents. It is really that item which inflates these costs to a total of some US$47,500.

15. Given that costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis — at least in relation to CFI 008/2011, 009/2011, 010/2011, 014/2011 and 016/2011 — the onus is on Ms Dadic to persuade the Court that that amount of time was not reasonably necessary. But she is not here to do that. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to assume that, after investigation, she could not demonstrate that 80 hours was excessive even on the most generous approach. Accordingly. it seems to me that the assessment of costs should be referred to the Registrar in the ordinary way: I should not, at this hearing, seek to make a summary assessment in the absence of Ms Dadic. Further, in the circumstances that there will be an assessment by the Registrar of the costs in CFI 026/2010 pursuant to the Order of 19 August 2011, issued on 6 September 2011, I think it appropriate that all the costs are looked at together. Inevitably there will have been a considerable amount of overlap. Accordingly, while awarding costs as I have indicated, I decline to make a summary assessment of those costs. I refer assessment to the Registrar.