July 31, 2024 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 051/2017
IN THE COURTS OF DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS L.L.C.
Claimant
and
OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY PSC
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 30 January 2024 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 23 April 2024 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Permission to Appeal Application”)
AND UPON the hearing Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Defendant at the hearing held on 23 July 2024
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Permission to Appeal Application is accepted to the benefit of both parties.
2. The matter shall be referred to the Court of Appeal for determination.
3. A costs order shall be deferred to the Court of Appeal.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 31 July 2024
At: 8am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This permission to appeal application is brought by the Appellant in the intention to have Declaration 1 and Declaration 2 of the Judgment set aside, to order that the Respondent is not entitled to damages as previously determined, and to claim the costs of the claim in CFI-051-2017 and the costs of the permission to appeal application from the Respondent (to be assessed if not agreed).
2. The Appellant submits four grounds of appeal in their application, all of which are based on an alleged error in law and/or fact found in the Judgment, which concern the interpretation and application of the Side Agreement, the certainty and/or inevitability of the damages claimed, and not reducing the damages by 51%.
3. The Appellant also submits a remedy in the alternative to the above, in that Declarations 4 and 5 of the Judgment are set aside, and in the further alternative Declaration 12 of the Judgment is set aside.
4. The Respondent rejected all grounds in their response, due to incompleteness of the pleadings and/or insufficiency to meet the threshold set by Rule 44.19 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”).
5. I applied RDC 44.19 throughout my review of the submissions from both parties, written and oral. I recognise that this case is extremely complex, and that both parties have advanced proposals that have a reasonable prospect of success or could succeed at a hearing for some other compelling reason. Therefore, under RDC 4.2(14) and 4.9 I will utilise the Court’s case management powers to accept both party’s submissions and refer the case to the Court of Appeal for determination.
