Privacy Settings

Claim No. CFI 023/2021

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

IGPL GENERAL TRADING LLC

Claimant

and

(1) HORTIN HOLDINGS LIMITED
(2) LODGE HILL LIMITED
(3) WESTDENE INVESTMENT LIMITED

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE ROGER GILES

UPON the Order with Reasons of Justice Roger Giles dated 22 August 2021 (the “Order”)

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s permission to appeal application dated 7 September 2021 filed against the Order (the “Permission Application”)

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s grounds of appeal and skeleton argument filed in support of the Permission Application dated 28 September 2021

AND UPON reviewing the Defendants’ written submissions in opposition the Permission Application dated 26 October 2021

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Permission Application is granted on grounds 1, 2 and 3 but refused on grounds 4 and 5.

Issued by:
Amna Al Owais
Chief Registrar
Date of issue: 1 November 2021
Time: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal from the orders for immediate judgment and dismissal of proceedings CFI-023–2021 in the Judgment issued on 22 August 2021. There are five grounds of appeal.

2. Permission is granted to appeal on grounds 1, 2 and 3.

3. Permission is refused to appeal on grounds 4 and 5. Pursuant to RDC 44.21, the brief reasons for the refusal are as follows.

4. Ground 4 complains of failure adequately to take into account the relevance of proceedings in the Sharjah Court of Appeal, said to have ruled on whether the power of attorney conferred authority on Abdulla to bind the Defendants. The ruling is between different parties on different facts in a different legal system and for a reason not arising in these proceedings. The ruling is irrelevant, and there is no real prospect of success on this ground.

5. Ground 5 complains of failure to appreciate or adequately take into account the further evidence that was likely to be available at trial. The matter was referred to at [63] of the Judgment. No particular further evidence is identified in the Claimant’s submissions. The circumstances of any use of the power of attorney were entirely within the knowledge of Abdulla, Mohammed and Majid. They could have, but did not, give evidence in the application for immediate judgment. Having chosen not to lead evidence from them, the Claimant cannot be heard to say that their evidence, for the purposes of the application, is further evidence likely to be available at trial, and I was not satisfied that there was otherwise material evidence going to Abdulla’s authority unavailable to the Claimant and likely to become available. That remains the case. There is no real prospect of success on this ground.

6. There is no other compelling reason why the appeal on grounds 4 and 5 should be heard.

7. The order is that permission to appeal is granted on grounds 1, 2 and 3, but refused on grounds 4 and 5.