March 03, 2021 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 065/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) EMIRATES NBD BANK PJSC
(2) AL KHALIJI FRANCE S.A.
(3) HSBC BANK MIDDLE EAST LIMITED
(4) UNITED ARAB BANK PJSC
(5) UNITED BANK LIMITED
(6) NATIONAL BANK OF FUJAIRAH PJSC
(7) COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI PJSC
(8) NOOR BANK PJSC
Claimants
and
(1) ADVANCED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LLC
(2) NASER BUTTI OMAIR YOUSEF ALMHEIRI (PERSONALLY AND TRADING AS NBB GROUP ESTABLISHMENT)
(3) ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LLC
(4) ADVANCED LAUNDRY LLC
(5) ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LLC
(6) AL ETIHAD INTERNATIONAL TYPING & TRANSACTION FOLLOWING CENTRE LLC
(7) ADVANCED NATIONAL CONTRACTING LLC
(8) CRUISE EXPRESS RENT A CAR LLC
(9) BIN BUTTI INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC
Defendants
ORDER OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The applications made in CFI-065-2020/2 be determined on paper.
2. The costs of the de novo consideration be paid by the Defendants, to be the subject of assessment if not agreed.
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Defendants apply for a de novo reconsideration of the decision of the Registrar, made on 23 February 2021, to determine the Defendants’ application for an extension of time for service of the Defence on paper and for production of original documents, without a hearing pursuant to RDC 23.69(3). That decision provided for the parties to make submissions in written skeleton arguments in addition to the witness evidence put before the Court.
2. There is no need for the consent of the parties for disposal of an application without a hearing under the terms of RDC 23.76.
3. An application for an extension of time is pre-eminently the kind of decision which is capable of being determined on paper, with the parties providing written submissions, without an oral hearing.
4. Assuming, without deciding, that a decision to determine am application on paper partakes of the nature of a ”judicial decision”, I have considered afresh whether it should be determined on paper and nor merely reviewed the decision of the Registrar. I consider that the determination of both limbs of the application should be determined on paper. I consider that the decision of the Registrar was fully justified in the circumstances set out in the evidence of Mr Carnell and Mr Brooks and with all skeleton arguments to which reference is made in the recital to this order. The volume of paper provided to me speaks for itself in showing how thoroughly the contentions have been advance by the Parties and how the Defendants have had every opportunity to say whatever they wished to say in writing. Nothing of any significance could be added by holding an oral hearing.
5. In the current circumstances where hearings are not easy to set up, even remotely, given COVID and time zone restrictions, the determination of the extension of time for the defence, even in a substantial matter of this kind is most efficiently made on paper.
6. As to the decision on production of original documents referred to in the Particulars of Claim, there is no issue as to the entitlement of the Defendants, only an issue of practicality as to the date by which the original documents can be produced, to the extent that this has not already happened. Whether they are to be provided before or after service of the Defence is again an issue of practicality only, since the Defence can be amended if there is any defence revealed on such inspection. Striking out the Particulars of Claim would be draconian and inconceivable in the absence of contumelious and wilful default in production of original documents, so this is a non- starter on the current evidence and raises only a practical matter of timing which is capable of, and has been, fully argued on paper. Once again, nothing of any significance could be added by holding an oral hearing, save to stress the seriousness of any order to strike out and to discount it in the current circumstances.
7. From the history of the proceedings thus far, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Defendants have sought and are seeking to delay them and that the purpose of the application for a de novo consideration by a Judge was made to that end. That is to be discouraged and condemned. The Defendants must therefore, having lost, pay the costs of the de novo consideration.
Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of issue: 3 March 2021
At: 10am
