November 07, 2022 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ORDERS
Claim No: CFI 066/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
SUMMIT AHUJA
Claimant
and
MAGDI HASSAN SIRELKHATIM HAG ELAMIN
Defendant
ORDER OF JUDICIAL OFFICER MAITHA ALSHEHHI
UPON the claim having been filed on 4 October 2022 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the request made by the Claimant dated 31 October 2022 against the Defendant (the “Request”) for a Default Judgment in accordance with Rule 13.1 (1) and (2) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), it is found as follows:
1. The Request is not one prohibited by RDC 13.3.
2. The Request is one permitted by RDC 13.4 on the basis that the Defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of service or a defence to the claim (or any part of the claim) with the DIFC Courts and the relevant time for so doing has expired.
3. The Defendant has not: (i) applied to the DIFC Courts to have the Claimant’s statement of case struck out under RDC 4.16; or for immediate judgment under RDC Part 24 (RDC 13.6(1)); (ii) satisfied the whole claim (including any claim for costs) on which the Claimant is seeking judgment; or (iii) filed or served on the Claimant an admission ORDR-4196001122-1302 2 of 3 under RDC 15.14 or 15.24 together with a request for time to pay in accordance with RDC 13.6(3).
4. The Claimant has followed the required procedure for obtaining Default Judgment in accordance with RDC 13.7 and 13.8
5. The claim is for a specified sum of money and the Request specifies the date by which the whole of the judgment debt is to be paid or the times and rate at which it is to be paid by instalments in accordance with RDC 13.9.
6. The Request includes a request for interest pursuant to RDC 13.14 and the Request sets out the calculation of interest in the claim.
7. The Claimant filed a Certificate of Service in accordance with RDC 9.43 dated 18 October 2022 attesting that the Claim Form was served by way of email.
8. The Claimant ought to have served the Claim Form upon the Defendant in accordance with the general methods of service permitted under RDC 9.2.
9. The Claimant failed to satisfy the requirement under RDC 9.3 which reads as follows:
"Where a document is to be served by electronic means:
(1) the party who is to be served or his legal representative must previously have expressly indicated in writing to the party serving:
(a) that he is willing to accept service by electronic means.”
The Claimant has not submitted evidence to that effect.
10. In addition to not following the correct procedure set out in RDC 9.2 and not obtaining the Defendant’s written permission to accept service of the Claim Form by email, the Claimant has also failed to seek the Courts’ permission to serve the Claim Form by an alternative method i.e. email pursuant to RDC 9.31 and 9.32. This is on the basis that, in the event the Claimant has been unable to satisfy the requirements of RDC 9.2(4), service by email must be sought by filing an application as it is deemed an alternative method of service.
11. I am not satisfied that the conditions as set out in RDC 13.22(1) have been met.
12. Having reviewed the lease agreement and the property tenancy information registration certificate dated 7 October 2021 filed in support of the Request, it appears that the parties are incorrectly identified within the Claim Form.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Request is denied for the reasons set out above.
2. The Claimant shall re-serve the Claim Form upon the Defendant in accordance with RDC 9.2.
3. The Claimant shall bear the costs of this Request.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 7 November 2022
At:1pm