 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Ahmed Seddiq Mohamed Samea Almutawa v Mohamed Seddiq Mohamed Samea Al Mutawa [2025] DIFC CFI 095 (24 February 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_095.html Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 95, [2025] DIFC CFI 095 |
||
[New search] [Help]
CFI 095/2023 Ahmed Seddiq Mohamed Samea Almutawa v Mohamed Seddiq Mohamed Samea Al Mutawa
February 24, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 095/2023
IN THE COURTS OF DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
AHMED SEDDIQ MOHAMED SAMEA ALMUTAWA
Claimant
and
MOHAMED SEDDIQ MOHAMED SAMEA AL MUTAWA
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE
UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 20 December 2023
AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-095-2023/5 dated 30 January 2025 (the “Application”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s evidence in answer dated 17 February 2025 and the Claimant’s evidence in reply dated 20 February 2025
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application is dismissed.
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the Application to be assessed if not agreed.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 24 February 2025
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Summary
1. The Claimant has applied for orders that the Defendant disclose his assets and undertake not to dispose or deal with them (the “Application”).
2. For the reasons stated below, the Application will be dismissed.
3. The Claimant must pay the Defendant's costs of the Application to be assessed if not agreed.
The application
4. The Claimant applies for orders that:
(a) the Defendant disclose his assets within a stipulated time frame, including all movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, and financial interests, wherever situated; and
(b) the Defendant provide an undertaking to the Court that he will not dispose of, transfer, or otherwise diminish the value of his disclosed assets until the final adjudication of the case.
5. The Claimant states the grounds of the Application are:
(a) The Defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings has been characterised by a pattern of delay, evasion, and disregard for his contractual obligations under the SPA.
(b) The Defendant has not only failed to pay the consideration amount of AED 16.03 million but has also admitted his lack of financial means in correspondence, raising serious concerns about his ability and willingness to satisfy any judgment in favour of the Claimant.
(c) The Defendant has failed to engage meaningfully in ADR, and his delay in appointing an expert despite relying on this as a core defence and his dilatory tactics have significantly prejudiced the Claimant, who has been compelled to incur substantial legal and procedural costs to protect his rights.
(d) The Claimant has every reason to apprehend that the Defendant may not only be unable to meet any judgment but may also dissipate his assets to frustrate the enforcement of such a judgment.
6. The fifth witness statement of Asha Treesa Bejoy, the Managing Partner of ATB Legal Consultancy FZ LLC supports the Application. The witness statement states:
(a) The Claimant and Defendant are brothers who were previously involved in joint business ventures, including the company Dynamic Security Establishment, which was later rebranded as Atlas Dynamic Electronic System LLC.
(b) The Claimant alleges that the Defendant breached a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) executed on 25th November 2018, under which the Defendant was to purchase a 70% stake in the company for AED 16,030,000, payable in 60 monthly instalments. The Defendant has failed to make any payments as per the agreement, constituting a breach of contract. Additionally, the Defendant has not complied with post-sale obligations, such as removing the "Atlas" name from the company's trade license.
(c) The Claimant seeks interim relief due to concerns that the Defendant may dissipate his assets, rendering any future judgment unenforceable. The Defendant has admitted to lacking the financial means to fulfill his obligations and has engaged in delay tactics, including failing to participate in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) discussions and delaying the appointment of an expert to challenge a Deloitte valuation report.
(d) The balance of convenience favours granting the relief sought, as it would ensure transparency and accountability while denying the application would prejudice the Claimant's ability to enforce any judgment.
7. In her witness statement in reply to the evidence in the answer filed by the Defendant, Ms Bejoy states that the Claimant’s Interim Order Application is brought under Rule 25.1 (7) of the Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre Court (the “RDC) which provides:
“The Court may grant the following interim remedies: … an order directing a party to provide information about the location of relevant property or assets or to provide information about relevant property or assets which are or may be the subject of an application for a freezing order.”
No basis for disclosure order
8. RDC 25.1 (7) is in similar terms to CPR 25.1(g). Westlaw’s Practical Law cites Gerald Metals v Timis (Vasile Frank) [2016] EWHC 2136 (Ch) as authority for the propositions that claimants may use CPR 25.1(1)(g) to identify assets of defendants which may assist in preserving the claimant's position in proceedings, it can be used without a freezing order being in place, and the jurisdictional threshold test is lower than that for freezing assets. The commentary states that when the court is considering this power, there only needs to be credible evidence and a reasonable possibility of an application for a freezing order; the risk of dissipation of assets does not need to be shown on the balance of probabilities as is the case with applications for freezing orders.
9. I have outlined the evidence adduced by the Claimant of the Defendant’s assets and of the risk he will remove them from the jurisdiction or otherwise deal with them to frustrate enforcement of a judgment against him.
10. Ms. Bejoy states that the Claimant has every reason to apprehend that the Defendant may not only be unable to meet any judgment but may also dissipate his assets to frustrate the enforcement of such a judgment.
11. However, the Claimant has not produced any evidence that the Defendant has or may have assets that may be available to satisfy a judgment against him if a judgment is given in the Claimant's favour. Indeed, the Claimant suspects the Defendant does not have assets to satisfy a judgment.
12. Nor has the Claimant adduced any credible evidence that there is a real risk that a judgment will not be satisfied because of an unjustifiable disposal of those assets.
13. There is no credible evidence of a reasonable possibility of an application for a freezing order.
14. The threshold for an asset disclosure order is lower than for a freezing order but it is not satisfied by a bald statement that the Claimant believes that the Defendant may dissipate his assets to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment.
15. If, contrary to my finding, the Claimant has satisfied the threshold for an asset disclosure order, I would not exercise my discretion to make an order.
16. The basis of the Claimant’s Application appears to be that he has a good case, and the Defendant should disclose his assets and be restrained from disposing of them to give the Claimant security for any judgment he might obtain or at least ensure that it is worthwhile to proceed with the case.
17. In the absence of credible evidence of a real risk the Defendant will dispose of or deal with his assets to frustrate the Claimant enforcing a judgment he might obtain against the Defendant, the Court does not make orders to give a Claimant security over the Defendant’s assets or to enable the Claimant to ascertain whether the Defendant has assets which make it worthwhile for the Claimant to proceed with the action.
18. The Claimant has not made out any, or any sufficient, grounds for the orders he seeks.
19. The Application will be dismissed.
20. The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of the Application to be assessed if not agreed.