The DIFC Court of First Instance issued a pivotal procedural order permitting alternative service of critical litigation documents, including a request for default judgment, upon a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction.
How did Iraq Telecom Limited justify the need for a Second Alternative Service Application against Raymond Samir Zina Rahmeh in CFI 019/2018?
The dispute centers on the ongoing efforts of Iraq Telecom Limited to progress its claim against Raymond Samir Zina Rahmeh and International Holdings Limited. Having previously secured a First Alternative Service Application, the Claimant found itself needing to serve a comprehensive suite of documents related to a Request for Default Judgment filed on 8 December 2021. The necessity for this second application arose from the difficulty in ensuring that the Defendant, Mr. Rahmeh, received formal notice of the court’s progression toward a default judgment, given the international nature of the parties and the complexities of serving a defendant who has not engaged through traditional channels.
The stakes involve the enforceability of the underlying claim and the procedural integrity of the default judgment process. By seeking this order, Iraq Telecom Limited aimed to satisfy the court that all reasonable steps had been taken to bring the "Subject Documents" to the attention of the Defendant. The court’s intervention was required to validate the use of electronic and courier-based service methods, thereby mitigating the risk that the Defendant could later challenge the validity of the proceedings on the grounds of improper service. As noted in the court's final order regarding costs:
The Defendant shall pay the Claimants’ costs of and incidental to this Application, such costs to be assessed if not agreed.
The application was supported by the second witness statement of Mr. Michael James Stewart, which provided the evidentiary basis for why traditional service methods were insufficient or impracticable in the circumstances.
Which judge presided over the Second Alternative Service Application in CFI 019/2018 at the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser, sitting in the Court of First Instance of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. The order was issued on 27 December 2021, following the filing of the application on 26 December 2021.
What were the specific arguments advanced by Iraq Telecom Limited regarding the necessity of alternative service on Raymond Samir Zina Rahmeh?
Iraq Telecom Limited argued that the Defendant, Mr. Raymond Rahmeh, had proven difficult to reach through standard service protocols, necessitating a departure from the default rules of service. The Claimant’s legal team relied upon the precedent established by the court’s earlier involvement in the case, specifically referencing the previous authorization for alternative service. The Claimant contended that serving the "Subject Documents"—which included the Request for Default Judgment, supporting affidavits, and the Default Judgment itself—via a combination of email and courier service to the Defendant’s known associates and residential premises was the most effective way to ensure actual notice.
The Claimant identified five specific "Alternative Methods" for service, targeting not only Mr. Rahmeh directly but also his close business associates, such as Mr. Sirwan Saber Mustafa Barzani and Mr. Louis AbouCharaf, as well as his legal representative, Mr. Michael Azar. By involving these parties, Iraq Telecom Limited sought to create a "net" of service that would make it impossible for the Defendant to claim ignorance of the court’s actions. The court had previously established the framework for this approach in the earlier stage of the litigation:
Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 17 June 2021 granting the First Alternative Service Application IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser had to resolve regarding the service of the Default Judgment request?
The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed alternative methods of service satisfied the requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to ensure that the Defendant was properly apprised of the Default Judgment request. The doctrinal issue was not whether the underlying claim had merit, but whether the court could exercise its discretion under RDC 9.31 to deem service "effected" through non-traditional means. The court had to balance the Claimant’s right to progress its litigation against the Defendant’s right to be informed of the proceedings, ensuring that the chosen methods were reasonably calculated to bring the documents to the Defendant's attention.
How did H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser apply the test for alternative service under RDC 9.31?
H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser applied the test for alternative service by evaluating the evidence provided in the witness statements of Mr. Michael James Stewart. The judge assessed whether the proposed methods—emailing the Defendant and his associates, and utilizing courier services to the Defendant’s residence and his lawyer’s office—constituted a sufficient effort to ensure the Defendant received the "Subject Documents." The reasoning focused on the practical reality that the Defendant, despite being aware of the litigation, had not engaged in a manner that allowed for standard service.
The court’s reasoning was grounded in the necessity of procedural efficiency. By authorizing the five specific methods, the judge ensured that the Claimant could proceed with the Default Judgment request without further delay. The court explicitly linked the date of service to the date on which the emails were sent and the courier packages were provided, thereby creating a clear, objective timeline for the Defendant to respond or challenge the proceedings. This approach reflects the court’s commitment to preventing a defendant from frustrating the judicial process through non-cooperation or evasion of service.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory provisions were applied in the determination of the Second Alternative Service Application?
The primary authority applied by the court was RDC 9.31, which grants the DIFC Court the power to permit service of documents by an alternative method if there is good reason to do so. The court’s order was specifically predicated on the Claimant’s compliance with the procedural requirements of this rule. Additionally, the court relied upon the evidentiary record established by the witness statements of Mr. Michael James Stewart and Mr. Nicholas Jonah Bortman, which served as the factual foundation for the application of RDC 9.31. The order also referenced the previous judicial authorization from 17 June 2021, demonstrating a consistent application of the court's discretionary powers to manage service in complex, cross-border disputes.
How did the court utilize previous orders and witness statements in its reasoning?
The court utilized the "First Alternative Service Application" and the associated witness statements as a procedural roadmap. By reviewing the first witness statement of Mr. Michael James Stewart and the second witness statement of Mr. Nicholas Jonah Bortman (both dated 16 June 2021), the court established a continuity of the Defendant’s conduct. The judge treated the previous order of 17 June 2021 as a foundational precedent for the current application, effectively concluding that if alternative service was appropriate in June, it remained appropriate for the subsequent, more critical documents related to the Default Judgment request in December. This reliance on the case history allowed the court to bypass the need for a de novo assessment of the Defendant’s whereabouts, focusing instead on the specific list of documents to be served.
What was the final disposition of the Second Alternative Service Application and the specific orders made by the court?
The court granted the application in its entirety. H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser ordered that the Claimants be permitted to serve the "Subject Documents" (as defined in Appendix A) on the Defendant, Mr. Raymond Rahmeh, via the five "Alternative Methods" specified in Appendix B. The order stipulated that the date of service would be deemed the date on which the emails were sent and the documents were provided to the courier. Furthermore, the court ordered that the Defendant pay the Claimants’ costs of and incidental to the application, subject to assessment if not agreed.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding alternative service in cases involving non-responsive defendants?
This case serves as a practical guide for practitioners navigating the complexities of serving defendants who reside outside the DIFC or who are intentionally avoiding service. It demonstrates that the DIFC Court is willing to authorize multi-faceted service strategies—including email and courier delivery to third-party associates—provided that the claimant can demonstrate a clear, documented history of the defendant’s non-responsiveness. Practitioners must anticipate that the court will require detailed witness statements justifying each proposed method of alternative service. Furthermore, the case highlights the importance of maintaining a comprehensive list of "Subject Documents" to ensure that every procedural step, including requests for default judgment, is covered by the court’s authorization, thereby insulating the final judgment from potential challenges regarding service validity.
Where can I read the full judgment in Iraq Telecom Limited v (1) Raymond Samir Zina Rahmeh (2) International Holdings Limited [2021] DIFC CFI 019?
The full order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-019-2018-iraq-telecom-limited-v-1-raymond-samir-zina-rahmeh-2-international-holdings-limited-1
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-019-2018_20211227.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Iraq Telecom Limited v (1) Raymond Samir Zina Rahmeh (2) International Holdings Limited | CFI 019/2018 | Primary case record and previous service order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 9.31