Privacy Settings

Claim No. CFI 015/2019

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM

Claimant/Respondent

and

EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP LTD

Defendant/ Applicant

ORDER OF H.E JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-015-2019/2 for an amendment to its Particulars of Claim dated 7 August 2019 (the “Amendment Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Immediate Judgment Application No. CFI-015-2019/1 dated 30 June 2019 (“IJA 1”) seeking dismissal of the Claim on the ground that it was filed under the wrong law and therefore there was no real prospect of success of the Claim

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 10 March 2020 (“Amendment Order”) allowing the Amendment Application and dismissing IJA 1

AND UPON the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim filed on 29 March 2020 (“POC 2”)

AND UPON the Consent Order dated 10 June 2020 affording the Claimant another opportunity to amend its Particulars of Claim

AND UPON the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim filed on 17 June 2020 (“POC 3”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Immediate Judgement and Strike Out Application No. CFI-015-2019/3 dated 8 October 2020 (“IJA 2”) as the Claimant continued to remain in breach of the Amendment Order

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 29 August 2021, amended by Order dated 5 September 2021 (“CFI Judgment”) allowing IJA 2 and granting leave to appeal and making the following order as to costs:

“The Claimant shall pay the Defendant its costs of the Immediate Judgment Application, on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.”

AND UPON the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 12 September 2021 (“Appeal Notice”)

AND UPON the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA-011-2021 dated 20 December 2021 (“Appeal Judgment”) allowing the Claimant to further amend its Particulars of claim to the extent that it invokes the provisions of the 2005 Employment Law and making the following order as to costs:

“… the costs order in the Court of First Instance should stand”, and that “The Respondent should have any costs thrown away by reason of that amendment.”

AND UPON the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim dated 3 January 2022 (“POC 4”) filed pursuant to the Appeal Judgment

AND UPON the Direction of the Registry dated 28 January 2022 directing the Claimant to comply with the Appeal Judgment in terms of the amendments made

AND UPON the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim dated 1 February 2022 (“POC 5”) which continues to be in breach of the Appeal Judgment and the RDC

AND UPON the Defendant’s letter to the Registry dated 2 February 2022 along with the Statement of Costs filed

AND UPON the Claimant having failed to pay the costs ordered

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-015-2019/4 dated 23 February 2022 seeking to strike out the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim dated 1 February 2022 for noncompliance with Part 18 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) (the “Application”)

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Application dated 17 March 2022

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s evidence in reply dated 23 March 2022

AND UPON taking into account all other relevant documents on the case file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is rejected.

2. The Claimant shall comply with the Judgment of CA-011-2021 dated 20 December 2021 on the following:

3. Costs of the Application shall be costs in the case.

Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of Issue: 6 April 2022
Time: 10am