March 29, 2023 TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION - ORDERS
Claim No. TCD 003/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
RAFID GOURMET INVESTMENT IN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES & MANAGEMENT LLC
Claimant
and
DIF INTERIOR DECORATION CO. LLC
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DELVIN SUMO
UPON the Claimant’s Application No. TCD-003-2022/1 dated 13 February 2023 seeking immediate judgment (the “Claimant’s Application”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. TCD-003-2022/2 dated 17 March 2023 (the “Defendant’s Application”)
AND UPON reviewing Rule 23.21 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant’s Application be dismissed due to its failure to meet the requirements of RDC 23.21.
2. The submissions filed in support of the Defendant’s Application shall be considered as the Defendant’s evidence in answer to the Claimant’s Application.
3. The Defendant shall bear their own costs of the Defendant’s Application.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 29 March 2023
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. In accordance with Rule 23.21 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) an application notice must state the order that the applicant is seeking and briefly explain why the applicant is seeking the order.
2. The Defendants’ Application Notice states as follows:
“The Defendant’s response to the Claimant’s Application No. TCD-003-2022/1 dated 13 February 2023.”
3. As set out above and within the Application Notice, the Defendant’s intention when filing the Application Notice was to file the evince in answer to the Claimant’s Application. The DIFC Courts’ eRegistry forms page provides an electronic filing cover sheet (the “SS1 Form”) which is the appropriate form to be used when filing submissions that are not required to be filed under a specific form. It is unfortunate that the Defendants’ representatives are unaware of the existence of the SS1 form and that they have made payment unnecessarily.
4. On 24 March 2023, the Registry sought clarification from the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s Application. On the same, the Defendant replied and confirmed that the Defendant’s Application was made in error, and that it was instead intended to be the evidence in answer to the Claimant’s Application
5. In light of the above, I find that the Defendants’ Application fails to satisfy the requirements of RDC 23.21 insofar as the Defendants do not appear to be seeking an order from the Court and therefore must be dismissed. The submissions made in support of the Application, shall be considered as the evidence in answer to the Claimant’s Application.
