Privacy Settings

Claim No. CFI 005/2021

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) ANOOP KUMAR LAL
(2) PAUL PATRICK HENNESSY

Claimants/Appellants

and

DONNA BENTON

Defendant/Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE ROBERT FRENCH

UPON the Part 8 Claim Form dated 14 January 2021 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Judgment of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 22 September 2023 (the “Judgment”)

AND UPON the Claimants’ Appeal Notice dated 13 October 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment (the “Permission Application”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 21 December 2023 refusing the Permission Application

AND UPON the Claimants’ Appeal Notice dated 25 December 2023 seeking renewed permission to appeal against the Judgment (the “Renewed Permission Application”)

AND UPON the decision of Justice Robert French made 2 September 2024 refusing the Claimants’ request for an oral hearing

AND UPON the decision of Justice Robert French dated 10 September 2024 refusing the Renewed Permission Application

AND UPON reviewing the Claimants’ Supplemental Submissions dated 3 October 2024 and the Defendant’s Responsive Submissions dated 10 October 2024

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimants’ Application for a Stay of the order refusing their Renewed Permission Application is refused.

2. The Claimants shall pay the Defendant’s costs of that Application to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.

Issued By:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 22 October 2024
At: 10am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Introduction

1. These reasons concern submissions received from the Claimants following the refusal issued on 10 September 2024 to grant them permission to appeal from the decision of Justice Glennie in the above matter. The Claimants contended in an email dated 16 September 2024 to the DIFC Courts Registry that paragraph 3 of the Reasons for Decision to refuse the application was factually incorrect in stating that their application for an oral hearing had been refused.

2. The refusal of the request for an oral hearing was recorded in paragraph 3 of the Reasons. That decision had been communicated to the Registry on 2 September 2024. It appears, however, as the Claimants pointed out in subsequent correspondence, that the decision had not been communicated to them. In the circumstances I made a direction on 26 September 2024 allowing the Claimants to file a submission relating to the failure to communicate the decision not to have an oral hearing to them. They have done so by a Supplemental Submission dated 3 October 2024. The Defendant filed a Responding Submission dated 10 October 2024.

3. In the Supplemental Submission, the Claimants set out arguments in favour of an oral hearing of their application for permission to appeal. It was said, inter alia, that the number and nature of the grounds of appeal reflected the nature and complexity of the case and that it was unsuitable for determination on the papers alone.

4. Various points said to require examination at an oral hearing were then set out.

5. The Claimants ask that the Order made on 10 September 2024 denying the Renewed Permission Application be stayed pending reconsideration at an oral hearing. The power to revoke or stay an order pursuant to RDC 4.2(6) and 4.7 was invoked. Those Rules provide as follows:

6. It will be noted that Part 4 of the RDC, in which these Rules are set out, is entitled “The Court’s case management powers”. On its face, the application by the Claimants goes to the merits of the decision to refuse their Renewed Permission Application linked to the contention that the matter should have been the subject of an oral hearing. On its face, this invocation of RDC 4.2(6) lies beyond the boundaries of case management powers. As to RDC 4.7, that does not provide the Court with a power to vary or revoke an order on the basis of submissions already rejected.

7. In Investment Group Private Limited v Standard Chartered Bank [2015] CA-004, the Court of Appeal held that a stay under RDC 4.2(6) should be granted only in “rare and compelling cases”.

8. In the Defendant’s Responsive Submissions, it was contended that:

I accept the Defendant’s submissions.

9. The Claimants’ application for a stay of the order refusing their Renewed Permission Application is refused. The Claimants are to pay the Defendant’s costs of that application, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.

10. On 16 October 2024, the Claimants wrote to the Registry raising a question about the opt in jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts under the Judicial Authority Law and the DIFC Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction in respect of the Defendant’s counterclaim. Reference was made to a decision of the DIFC SCT given on 19 March 2024. The Defendant responded with an email to the Registry questioning the standing of the Claimants’ solicitors to represent them on matters arising out of ongoing enforcement proceedings in respect of which they had informed the Defendant that they were unable to accept service of Claim Forms and accompanying documents as they were not authorised to do so.

11. Whatever the authority of the Claimants’ solicitors in relation to the enforcement proceedings, nothing said warrants a departure from the orders of the Court refusing the Renewed Permission Application.