March 02, 2021 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 051/2017
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC
Claimant/Proposed Respondent
and
OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY PSC
Defendant/ Proposed Appellant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR RICHARD FIELD
UPON considering the Order with Reasons in this case dated 4 October 2020 by which it was ordered, inter alia, that the Defendant’s application for permission to re-amend its Defence and to bring a Counterclaim contending that the Claimant was a nullity be dismissed.
AND UPON considering the Defendant’s application dated 28 October 2020 for permission to appeal the said order dated 4 October 2020 dismissing its application to re-amend its Defence and bring a Counterclaim pleading the said nullity point.
AND UPON considering the Defendant’s proposed grounds of appeal
AND UPON considering the Defendant’s skeleton argument in support of its said application and the Claimant’s skeleton argument opposing the said application
IT IS NOW HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal the said Order with Reasons dated 4 October 2020 is dismissed with costs to be assessed, if not agreed, by the Registrar on the standard basis.
Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of Issue: 2 March 2021
At: 9am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. By RDC Rule 44.19, the Court will only grant permission to appeal if: (i) the proposed appeal would have a real prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the proposed appeal should be heard.
2. In seeking permission to appeal the Court’s order dated 4 October 2020 the Defendant contends that each of its proposed grounds of appeal has a real prospect of success. As Justice Giles observed in Dattani & Others v Damac Park Towers Company Ltd [2012] CFI 034 at [6], a “real prospect of success does not mean probability but more than mere arguability and a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success.”
3. The decision dated 4 October 2020 sought to be appealed was a case management decision involving the exercise of a wide discretionary power. In my judgment, despite the Defendant’s pleaded reliance in its proposed grounds of appeal on alleged vitiating errors in the way the Court exercised its discretion, none of these grounds has a real as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success and accordingly the application for permission to appeal must be and is refused.