Welcome to the DIFC Courts website. To optimise the experience, this website only uses strictly necessary cookies.
The DIFC Courts takes your privacy very seriously and respects the importance of security on the internet. DIFC Courts websites use cookies and similar technologies for various purposes including to distinguish you from other users of our websites. By continuing to use our websites, you agree to our cookie policy.
What cookies do we use?
Cookies are text files containing small amounts of information. They are downloaded to your computer or device when you visit a website. They don’t tell us who you are but they do enable us to recognise your device and where you have made various preferences or actions they enable us to remember them.
Why do we use cookies?
Cookies do lots of different jobs, like letting you navigate between web pages efficiently, remembering your preferences, and generally improving your experience of our websites. The cookies can help to ensure that adverts you see online are more relevant to you and your interests.
Disabling cookies
DIFC Courts websites are designed to function optimally with cookies enabled. You can, however, disable cookies via your website browser settings. This may mean, however, that you may no longer have access to some of our website features. Please note that even with all cookies disabled, a tiny amount of information will continue to be retrieved from your web browser. This information is necessary for the basic functioning of our website.
Changes to our cookie policy
We may change this cookie policy from time to time. If we make changes, we will notify you by revising the date on this policy and in some cases by adding notices on our homepage or other websites or sending you email updates (where data protection laws allow this).
Contact us
If you have any questions about our cookie policy you can contact us at: ithelpdesk@difccourts.ae
CFI 014/2010 Taaleem PJSC v (1) National Bonds Corporation PJSC (2) Deyaar Development PJSC
UPON reviewing the Appellant’s Application Notice CFI-014-2010/21 for reconsideration of refusal of permission to appeal at an oral hearing;
AND UPON hearing Counsel for all parties at a hearing on 29 June 2014;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Permission to appeal is denied.
No order be made as to costs, as per Rules 44.28 and 44.29 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
REASONS:
This application was lodged by the Apellant (Deyaar) after they submitted an application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Justice Sir David Steel, which was refused by Justice Roger Giles in a detailed jCdgment without a hearing on 24 April 2014.
Justice Roger Giles refused to grant the Appellant permission to appeal against Justice Sir David Steel’s judgment after considering the grounds of appeal without a hearing and concluded that the grounds of appeal, whether taken independently or collectively, did not offer any real prospects of success.
Although the Appellant submitted grounds of appeal for Justice Roger Giles to consider in dealing with the first application for permission to appeal which was refused as stated above, the Appellant has not submitted any further reasons why permission should be granted notwithstanding the reasons given for the refusal of the first application for permission without a hearing.
The Appellant’s failure to set out reasons after having their application rejected before Justice Roger Giles contravenes the requirement in RDC 44.19
As such, I was not assisted by the Appellant as to why Justice Roger Giles was wrong in refusing to grant permission to appeal in the first place. All I was informed by the Appellant was that they were not pursuing Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 15 of the Grounds of Appeal before me in the hearing of 29 June 2014.
On the other hand the Respondents, Taaleem and National Bonds, submitted lengthy Skeleton Arguments as to why Deyaar’s application for reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal should be dismissed.
Despite the Appellant’s failure to provide reasons, notwithstanding the reasoned refusal of their first application, I allowed the Appellant to proceed with the hearing.
I have considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, Justice Roger Giles’ reasoned Judgment of 24 April 2014, the Appellant’s oral submissions and the Respondents’ written and oral submissions, and I am not satisfied by the arguments presented before me that the Appellant’s grounds of appeal present a real prospect of success.
