December 07, 2023 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ORDERS
Claim No. CFI 108/2021
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) ALEXANDER REUTER
(2) ANDRE BLEDJIAN
Claimants/Respondents
and
(1) WELLNESS UNITED INC.
(2) JACOB LOGOTHETIS (aka Iakovos Logothetis)
(3) ANGELA TUROVSKAYA
Defendants/Applicants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE
UPON reviewing the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim dated 13 December 2021, as amended on 19 April 2022 and re-amended on 30 March 2023
AND UPON the Judgment of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 27 October 2023 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-108-2021/7 dated 10 November 2023 seeking a retrospective extension of time to file an appeal against the Judgment (the “Defendants’ Application” or “Application”)
AND UPON reviewing the Respondents’ email correspondence to the Registry dated 21 November 2023 in response to the Defendants’ Application
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material filed onto the Court file
AND UPON reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants’ Application is refused.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 7 December 2023
At: 11am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Application is made on the basis that new legal representation is being sought and further time is needed for them to prepare submissions. No supporting statement or evidence is provided.
2. No details are given of the likely grounds of appeal. Even without detailed input from a lawyer, it should be possible to give an indication of the likely grounds of appeal
3. Nor is any detail given about the difficulties in obtaining legal representation so as to enable an appellant's notice to be served within the time allowed by RDC 44.11. In paragraph 2 of my Judgment, I set out some of the relevant procedural history. That account highlighted failures on the part of the Defendants to get legal representation or provide an explanation of the efforts they had made to obtain legal representation and the difficulties that may have been encountered. Nothing in the Application under consideration addresses these points.
4. In all the circumstances, having regard to the above and to what I said in paragraph 2 of my Judgment about the history of this matter, I see no basis for granting an extension of time for filing notice of appeal.
5. The Application is refused.
