January 04, 2022 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 056/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
TARIG MOHAMED ABDELSALAM ABDELRAHMAN
Claimant
and
EXEPRESSO TELECOM GROUP LTD
Defendant
ORDER OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE
UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-056-2021/5 dated 6 December 2021 (the “Application”) seeking to amend the Particulars of Claim
AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-056-2021/6 dated 12 December 2021 requesting that out of the deposited amount by the Defendant (USD 207,329) in favour of the Claimant, AED 50,000 to be transferred back from the DIFC Courts Escrow account to the Defendant’s Bank account
AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s response to the Application No. CFI-056-2021/6 filed 21 December 2021
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. As to the Amended Particulars of Claim, the Defendant must within 7 days inform the Claimant and the Court if it consents to the form of the Amended Particulars of Claim and, if not, to set out any objections in a letter to the Claimant within that period with a copy to the Court.
2. If there is any such objection, the Claimant must respond within 7 days thereafter in a letter to the Defendant and to the Court.
3. If consent is given, then the Defendant should file a Defence within 14 days of the giving of such consent.
4. As to the Application to withdraw sums from the amounts paid into Court, permission is given for the sum of AED 50,000 to be paid out to the Defendant in respect of the order for costs in its favour.
5. Permission to pay the balance to the Claimant is refused.
Issued by:
Amna Al Owais
Chief Registrar
Date of issue: 4 January 2022
Time: 9am
REASONS
1. The Amended Particulars of Claim set out the Claimant’s position as to the sums owed to him on termination of his employment. That appears to conform to the Court’s previous order, but the Defendant should be asked for its consent or objections, as the case may be. An unreasonable failure to consent is likely to be penalised in costs.
2. A Defence is required in respect of the disputed sums claimed, either following consent to the Amended Particulars of Claim or, if there is any objection to the Amendments, following the Court’s ruling in relation to such amendment and any order for costs
3. As the Defendant has a costs order in its favour and has paid money into Court which it has admitted to be due to the Claimant on termination of his employment, if the Claimant wishes to use part of that sum to pay the Defendant in respect of the costs ordered against him, he should be allowed to do so.
4. However, the purpose of the payment into court on admissions, as opposed to a payment directly to the Claimant, was to abide the result of the proceedings and any costs orders that might be made or any agreed settlement of the proceedings, partly in the hope that the parties would reach agreement on the sums due to the Claimant and not incur further costs in relation to a comparatively small claim. Those sums are to remain in Court for those reasons. It is to be hoped that the parties will reach agreement and not incur unnecessary costs. If agreement is reached, then the sum in court can be paid out in accordance with that agreement with any additional sums agreed to be owed.
