Privacy Settings

Claim No: CFI 085/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) DAIKAN DMCC
(2) SALIH ELMASCAN

Claimants

and

(1) POKE AND CO RESTAURANT LTD
(2) KHALED MOHAMED ABDEL MAGEED
(3) RANNIA EL-BASYUNI

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE

UPON the Order with Reasons of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 28 February 2024 (the “Order with Reasons”)

AND UPON the First Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 21 March 2024 and the “Second Defendant’s Appeal” dated 18 March 2024 (together the “Defendants’ Application for Permission to Appeal”) seeking permission to appeal the Order with Reasons

AND UPON the Second Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 22 March 2024 seeking permission to appeal the Order with Reasons (the “Second Claimant’s Permission to Appeal”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s written submissions dated 15 April 2024 filed in opposition of the Defendants’ Application for Permission to Appeal

AND UPON reviewing all relevant material added onto the Court file

AND UPON reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The First Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal on jurisdictional grounds is refused.

2. The Second Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal on jurisdictional grounds is refused.

3. The Claimant’s Application for Permission to Appeal from the order for immediate judgement in the sum of AED1 million is refused.

4. The First Defendant shall pay the Claimants the costs of its Application for Permission to Appeal, such costs to be the subject of assessment by the Registrar if not agreed.

5. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimants the costs of its Application for Permission to Appeal, such costs to be the subject of assessment by the Registrar if not agreed.

Issued By:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 23 April 2024
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The First Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal on jurisdictional grounds is refused. Jurisdiction over the First Defendant is evident by reason of its incorporation in the DIFC, regardless of whether or not the claim against it is found to be valid. Therefore, any appeal on this basis has no real prospect of success

2. The Second Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal on jurisdictional grounds is refused because the loan transaction was partly performed in the DIFC in accordance with Article 5(A)(1)(c) of the JAL by payment into the First Defendant’s bank account in the DIFC, in order to ameliorate its liquidity issues in the DIFC. Article 5(A)(1)(b) also applies. The Second Defendant’s appeal is also out of time and permission to appeal is refused for that reason also. Any appeal has no realistic prospect of success.

3. The Second Claimant’s Application for Permission to Appeal on the basis that a larger sum should have been awarded by way of immediate judgement is refused. It could not be said that the Second Defendant had no realistic prospect of defending the claim for the larger sum of AED 1.3 million when the Second Claimant was insisting on the receipt of postdated cheques, which the Second Defendant refused to provide. Immediate judgment could only be given for the sums to which there was no arguable defence. Any appeal on this basis has no realistic prospect of success.

4. Having failed in their applications for permissions to appeal and the Claimant having opposed the applications and sought the costs of doing so, the First Defendant shall pay the Claimants the costs of its Application for Permission to Appeal and the Second Defendant shall pay the Claimants the costs of its Application for Permission to Appeal, such costs to be the subject of assessment by the Registrar if not agreed.