Did Deyaar Development provide sufficient grounds to challenge the refusal of permission to appeal against the judgment of Justice Sir David Steel in CFI 014/2010?
The litigation, which has spanned several years, involves a complex dispute between Deyaar Development PJSC and the respondents, Taaleem PJSC and National Bonds Corporation PJSC. Following an adverse judgment by Justice Sir David Steel, Deyaar sought to challenge the decision through the appellate process. The current order represents the final stage of this specific procedural battle, where the Appellant attempted to have a previous refusal of permission to appeal reconsidered at an oral hearing.
The court found that the Appellant failed to advance the necessary arguments to overcome the initial hurdle established by Justice Roger Giles on 24 April 2014. Rather than providing a substantive basis for why the previous refusal was erroneous, the Appellant merely narrowed the scope of its original challenge. As noted in the court's reasoning:
All I was informed by the Appellant was that they were not pursuing Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 15 of the Grounds of Appeal before me in the hearing of 29 June 2014.
This failure to engage with the merits of the prior refusal effectively left the court without a basis to grant the application. For further context on the procedural history of this matter, see TAALEEM v NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION [2010] DIFC CFI 014 — Jurisdiction and joinder of parties (26 September 2010).
Which judge presided over the reconsideration hearing for Deyaar Development in the Court of First Instance on 16 October 2014?
The application for reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani. The hearing itself took place on 29 June 2014, with the formal order issued on 16 October 2014, following the review of the parties' submissions.
How did the Respondents, Taaleem and National Bonds, counter Deyaar Development’s application for reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal?
The Respondents adopted a rigorous approach to the hearing, contrasting sharply with the Appellant’s lack of substantive engagement. While Deyaar Development simply informed the court of the specific grounds of appeal they were choosing to abandon, Taaleem and National Bonds provided comprehensive documentation to support the dismissal of the application.
The court highlighted the disparity in the parties' preparations:
On the other hand the Respondents, Taaleem and National Bonds, submitted lengthy Skeleton Arguments as to why Deyaar’s application for reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal should be dismissed.
By filing detailed skeleton arguments, the Respondents ensured that the court was fully appraised of the legal and factual reasons why the original refusal by Justice Roger Giles remained sound and why the Appellant’s application lacked merit.
What was the precise procedural question H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani had to answer regarding the Appellant's compliance with RDC 44.19?
The core question before the court was whether the Appellant had satisfied the procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of a refused application for permission to appeal. Specifically, the court had to determine if Deyaar had provided sufficient, new, or compelling reasons to justify overturning the previous decision by Justice Roger Giles, which had been made without a hearing. The court examined whether the Appellant’s conduct—specifically the failure to address the reasoning of the prior refusal—constituted a breach of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
How did H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the "real prospect of success" test to the Appellant's grounds of appeal?
Justice Ali Al Madhani conducted a holistic review of the materials, including the original judgment by Justice Sir David Steel, the reasoned refusal by Justice Roger Giles, and the oral and written submissions from all parties. Despite the Appellant’s procedural shortcomings, the judge exercised discretion to hear the matter fully before reaching a conclusion.
The judge’s reasoning focused on the lack of substance in the Appellant's arguments. The court emphasized that the Appellant had failed to articulate why the initial refusal was incorrect, stating:
As such, I was not assisted by the Appellant as to why Justice Roger Giles was wrong in refusing to grant permission to appeal in the first place.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the grounds of appeal, even after the Appellant had abandoned several of them, failed to meet the threshold required for an appeal to proceed. The judge explicitly stated that he was not satisfied that the arguments presented offered a "real prospect of success."
Which specific RDC rules did the court cite regarding the Appellant's failure to provide reasons for the reconsideration application?
The court relied heavily on RDC 44.19 to address the Appellant's procedural failure. This rule requires an applicant seeking reconsideration of a refused permission to appeal to set out clear reasons why the initial refusal was incorrect. The court found that Deyaar’s failure to do so was a direct contravention of this rule.
As noted in the judgment:
The Appellant’s failure to set out reasons after having their application rejected before Justice Roger Giles contravenes the requirement in RDC 44.19.
The court also referenced RDC 44.28 and 44.29 in the context of the costs order, which dictated that no order for costs be made.
How did the court treat the previous refusal of permission to appeal by Justice Roger Giles in its assessment of the current application?
The court treated the 24 April 2014 decision by Justice Roger Giles as a "reasoned refusal." Justice Ali Al Madhani noted that Justice Giles had already considered the grounds of appeal, both independently and collectively, and had concluded they lacked merit. By failing to provide new reasons or arguments to challenge the logic of that specific refusal, the Appellant left the court with no alternative but to uphold the previous decision. The court acknowledged that it had allowed the hearing to proceed despite this failure, but ultimately found the Appellant’s position untenable.
What was the final disposition of the application for reconsideration filed by Deyaar Development in CFI 014/2010?
The court denied the application for permission to appeal. The order confirmed that the Appellant’s grounds of appeal did not present a real prospect of success. Regarding the costs of the application, the court ordered that no order be made, citing the relevant RDC provisions:
No order be made as to costs, as per Rules 44.28 and 44.29 of the Rules of the
DIFC Courts
(RDC).
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the reconsideration of refused permission to appeal?
This case serves as a stern reminder to practitioners that an oral hearing for reconsideration of a refused permission to appeal is not a "second bite at the cherry" to re-argue the same points without addressing the reasons for the initial refusal. Practitioners must explicitly engage with the logic provided by the judge who initially refused permission.
The court’s willingness to allow the hearing to proceed despite the Appellant’s failure to provide reasons—as noted in the quote: "Despite the Appellant’s failure to provide reasons, notwithstanding the reasoned refusal of their first application, I allowed the Appellant to proceed with the hearing"—demonstrates the court's procedural fairness, but the ultimate denial underscores that such leniency does not equate to a favorable outcome if the substantive legal arguments remain deficient. Litigants must anticipate that the court will strictly enforce the requirement to provide new, compelling arguments under RDC 44.19.
Where can I read the full judgment in Deyaar Development v Taaleem [2014] DIFC CFI 014?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: DIFC CFI 014/2010 Judgment.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Deyaar Development v Taaleem | CFI 014/2010 | Refusal of permission to appeal by Justice Roger Giles on 24 April 2014 |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Rule 44.19
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Rule 44.28
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Rule 44.29