[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Naazim (2) Nabeel (3) Neilson v Neville [2024] DIFC CFI 078 (19 August 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DCFI_0788.html

[New search] [Help]

CFI 078/2023 (1) Naazim (2) Nabeel (3) Neilson v Neville

August 19, 2024 court of first instance - Orders

Claim No: CFI 078/2023

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURT

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) NAAZIM
(2) NABEEL
(3) NEILSON

Claimants/Respondents

and

NEVILLE

Defendant/Appellant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK KC

---

UPON the Winding Up Order dated 25 April 2024 (the “Winding Up Order”)

AND UPON the Order of Justice Michael Black dated 21 May 2024 setting aside the Winding Up Order (the “Set Aside Order”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of Justice Michael Black dated 12 June 2024 (the “Costs Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-078-2023/2 dated 26 June 2024 seeking to challenge the Costs Order (the “Defendant’s Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 19 July 2024 (the “Application for Permission to Appeal”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of Justice Michael Black dated 6 August 2024 dismissing the Defendant’s Application, the Application for Permission to Appeal and Application to stay execution of the Costs Order (the “Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s without notice Application No. CFI-078-2023/3 dated 15 August 2024 (the “Application”) seeking to suspend the Order until the pending appeals of the Set Aside Order are concluded

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe Application is dismissed.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 19 August 2024
At: at 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. On 12 June 2024, I had ordered that the Defendant pay the Claimants’ costs of a Winding Up Order (the “Winding Up Order”) made on 25 April 2024 in winding up proceedings immediately assessed in the amount of USD 80,875.32 (the “Costs Order”). The Winding Up Order had been made in respect of unpaid judgment debts in favour of the Claimants arising out of SCT proceedings. On 21 May 2024, the Winding Up Order was set aside because the underlying SCT judgments were themselves set aside by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 21 May 2024 (the “Set Aside Order”). The Set Aside Order is currently under appeal.

2. On 26 June 2024, the Defendant served an Application Notice (the “Defendant’s Application”) which was clearly intended to challenge the Cost Order but failed to comply with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) governing appeals. The Defendant was permitted an opportunity to serve an Appeal Notice in the proper form. On 19 July 2024, the Defendant served an Appeal Notice seeking permission to appeal the Costs Order (the “Application for Permission to Appeal”).

3. On 6 August 2024, I dismissed the application dated 26 June 2024, refused permission to appeal the Costs Order and refused to stay execution of the Costs Order (the “Order”).

4. On 15 August 2024, the Defendant filed an application,“We request the DIFC Court to suspend the Order till the judgement on the cases will be concluded”seeking that the application be addressed at a hearing without notice to the Claimants (the “Application”).

5. I do not consider that a hearing is necessary and will deal with the Application without a hearing under RDC 1.9(10) and RDC 23.69(3). I am content to deal with the Application without notice to the Claimants under RDC 1.9(3) and RDC 23.6(2) on the basis that the Application may be disposed of summarily.

6. The sole ground of the current Application is that“Please be advised that as the cases are under trial.”Those case numbers relate to the pending appeals of the Set Aside Order.

7. In the reasons for my Order of 6 August 2024, I made it clear that the Costs Order was made without regard to the underlying merits of the Claimants’ claims, that the Defendant only has itself to blame for the Winding Up Proceedings, and that the Defendant must bear all of the consequences of its misconduct in seeking to delay proceedings and consistently ignoring Court Orders. The present Application is the latest example of such misconduct. It amounts to an unacceptable collateral challenge to my decision on 6 August 2024 refusing to stay execution of the Costs Order and that the Costs Order may be enforced forthwith.

8. The Application is therefore dismissed.