August 16, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 219/2023
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
MIRKA
Claimant/Respondent
and
MUORT
Defendant/Appellant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 31 July 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Order of SCT Judge Delvin Sumo dated 14 July 2023 (the “Permission Application”)
AND UPON reviewing Rules 53.2(2), 53.91, 53.94 and 53.100 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material in the case file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Permission Application is refused.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 16 August 2023
Time: 10am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. By Rule 53.94 of the RDC, applications for permission to appeal may be considered by the Court of First Instance without a hearing. I consider that a hearing is unnecessary in the present application.
2. By Rule 53.91 of the RDC, permission to appeal may be given only where (1) the Court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or (2) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
3. I do not consider that the proposed appeal possesses a real prospect of success. In review of the Appeal notice filed by the Defendant, I find that the Appeal does not meet the requirements under RDC 53.91. I briefly set out my reasons below.
4. The Appeal fails in form insofar as RDC 53.106 sets out that an appeal notice must be accompanied by reasons of the appeal relied upon in the appeal. The Appeal notice filed by the Defendant does not include any evidence that goes against the default order. Although the Defendant does submit a breakdown of the amount requested by the Claimant previously, which the Defendant submits is all that the Claimant is entitled to receive. The Defendant failed to address or provide any evidence against the amounts that were put forward by the Claimant.
5. Further, I cannot see any other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
Conclusion
6. For the above reasons the Permission Application is refused.
7. Each party shall bear their own costs.
