This order confirms the entry of a default judgment in the DIFC Court of First Instance, underscoring the procedural rigor required to secure a monetary award when a defendant fails to engage with the litigation process.
What was the nature of the dispute between Five Holding Limited and Orient Unb Takaful PJSC that led to an AED 25,000,000 claim?
The litigation involved a substantial financial claim brought by Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel Jumeirah Village LLC against Orient Unb Takaful PJSC. The claimants sought recovery of a specified sum of AED 25,000,000. The dispute reached a critical juncture when the defendant failed to participate in the proceedings, necessitating a formal request for default judgment.
The court’s assessment of the claim’s validity relied on the defendant’s total lack of engagement, as evidenced by their failure to challenge the claim or offer any form of admission. As noted in the court's findings:
The Defendant has not: (i) applied to the DIFC Courts to have the Claimant’s statement of case struck out under RDC 4.16; or for immediate judgment under RDC Part 24 (RDC 13.6(1)); (ii) satisfied the whole claim (including any claim for costs) on which the Claimant is seeking judgment; or (iii) filed or served on the Claimant an admission under RDC 15.14 or 15.24 together with a request for time to pay (RDC 13.6(3)).
Which judge presided over the CFI 027/2021 default judgment hearing in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The order was issued by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The decision was formalized on 14 March 2021, following the claimants' request for default judgment submitted on 11 March 2021.
What specific procedural failures by Orient Unb Takaful PJSC allowed the claimants to move for default judgment?
The claimants’ position was that the defendant had been properly served and had subsequently failed to meet any of the mandatory procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The claimants argued that because the defendant had not filed an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence, the court was empowered to grant the relief sought without a trial.
The court verified that the claimants had fulfilled their obligations regarding service, noting:
The Claimants filed a Certificate of Service in relation to the Defendant pursuant to RDC 9.43 on 2 March 2021.
Furthermore, the court confirmed the defendant's inaction:
The Defendant failed to file Defences to the claim (or any part of the claim) with the DIFC Courts and the relevant time for so doing has expired (RDC 13.4).
What was the jurisdictional question the court had to satisfy before granting the AED 25,000,000 award?
The court was required to determine whether it possessed the requisite authority to enter a default judgment in a case involving a specified sum of money. This involved verifying that the claim fell within the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction, that no other court held exclusive jurisdiction, and that the procedural requirements for service had been strictly adhered to. The court had to ensure that the request was not prohibited by any RDC provisions and that the claimants had provided sufficient evidence to support the court's power to hear the matter.
How did H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser apply the RDC requirements to validate the claimants' request?
Justice Al Nasser conducted a systematic review of the RDC to ensure that the claimants had met the threshold for default judgment. The judge verified that the claim was for a specified sum, that the interest calculation was properly pleaded, and that the defendant had been given ample opportunity to respond. The reasoning process focused on the absence of any procedural bars to the judgment.
The court’s satisfaction with the evidence provided by the claimants was summarized as follows:
The Claimants have submitted evidence, as required by RDC 13.24, that (i) the claim is one that the DIFC Courts have power to hear and decide; (ii) no other court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim; and (iii) the claim has been properly served (RDC 13.22/13.23).
Which specific RDC rules were cited by the court to justify the entry of the default judgment?
The court relied heavily on RDC Part 13, which governs default judgments. Specifically, the court cited RDC 13.1(1) and (2) as the basis for the claimants' request. The court also referenced RDC 13.4 regarding the expiry of the time to file a defence, and RDC 13.6(1) and 13.6(3) regarding the absence of any applications to strike out or admissions of liability. Additionally, the court confirmed compliance with RDC 13.7 and 13.8 regarding the procedure for obtaining the judgment, and RDC 13.14 regarding the request for interest.
How did the court utilize RDC 13.22 and 13.23 in its assessment of the claim?
The court utilized RDC 13.22 and 13.23 as the primary evidentiary gatekeepers. By confirming that these rules were met, the court established that the claimants had successfully demonstrated the DIFC Court's competence to adjudicate the matter. These rules mandate that the claimant must prove the court has the power to hear the claim and that service was executed correctly, ensuring that the default judgment is not vulnerable to future challenges regarding jurisdiction or notice.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the AED 25,000,000 claim and associated costs?
The court granted the request for default judgment in its entirety. The defendant was ordered to pay the principal sum of AED 25,000,000. Additionally, the court imposed post-judgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum, accruing from the date of the judgment until full payment is made. Regarding legal costs, the court ordered:
The Defendant shall pay the Claimants legal costs, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.
What does this case imply for future litigants regarding the necessity of filing an Acknowledgment of Service?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts maintain a strict adherence to procedural timelines. Litigants who fail to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence within the prescribed periods risk an immediate default judgment for the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs. The case highlights that the court will not hesitate to grant such requests when the claimant has meticulously followed the RDC, particularly regarding service and the submission of evidence required under RDC 13.24.
Where can I read the full judgment in Five Holding Limited v Orient Unb Takaful PJSC [2021] DIFC CFI 027?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-027-2021-1-five-holding-limited-2-five-hotel-jumeirah-village-llc-v-orient-unb-takaful-pjsc
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law was cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC):
- RDC 4.16
- RDC 9.43
- RDC 13.1(1) and (2)
- RDC 13.3(1) and (2)
- RDC 13.4
- RDC 13.6(1) and (3)
- RDC 13.7 and 13.8
- RDC 13.9
- RDC 13.14
- RDC 13.22 and 13.23
- RDC 13.24
- RDC 15.14 and 15.24
- RDC Part 24