The DIFC Court of First Instance has formally terminated the appellate challenges brought by the Second Defendant, Catherine Zhilla, following her persistent failure to engage with the Court Registry regarding her intent to prosecute two pending applications for permission to appeal.
What was the nature of the dispute between Mad Atelier International B.V. and Catherine Zhilla that led to the filing of the First and Second PTA?
The underlying litigation, registered as CFI 030/2022, involves the Claimant, Mad Atelier International B.V., and two Defendants, Axel Manes and Catherine Zhilla. The procedural history of the case was marked by the Second Defendant’s attempts to halt the proceedings through jurisdictional challenges and requests for a stay. Specifically, the Second Defendant sought to stay the proceedings by referring the matter to the Joint Judicial Committee (JJC), a body tasked with resolving conflicts of jurisdiction between DIFC Courts and onshore Dubai courts.
Following the dismissal of these applications, the Second Defendant filed two separate notices seeking permission to appeal (PTA) the Court’s decisions. The dispute at this stage of the proceedings shifted from the substantive merits of the claim to the procedural viability of these appellate challenges. As noted in the court record:
Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 1 August 2022 dismissing the Second Defendant’s application to stay the proceedings pursuant to its referral of the proceedings to the Joint Judicial Committee (the “First Order”) AND UPON the Order of H.E.
Which judge presided over the order to strike out the appeal applications in CFI 030/2022?
The order was issued by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The decision was formalized on 11 April 2023, following a period of inactivity by the Second Defendant that spanned from the filing of the appeals in September 2022 through to the Registry’s follow-up inquiries in March 2023.
What positions did the parties take regarding the procedural status of the First and Second PTA?
The Claimant, Mad Atelier International B.V., maintained its position throughout the litigation that the proceedings should continue, having successfully defended against the Second Defendant’s initial applications to stay and contest jurisdiction. The Second Defendant, Catherine Zhilla, had initially adopted an aggressive procedural stance, filing the First PTA on 29 September 2022 to challenge the First Order and the Second PTA on the same date to challenge the Second Order.
However, the Second Defendant’s position effectively became one of abandonment. Despite the Registry of the DIFC Courts issuing formal requests on 3 March 2023 and 21 March 2023—the "Registry’s Requests"—seeking confirmation as to whether she intended to pursue the First PTA and the Second PTA, the Second Defendant failed to provide any response. By failing to communicate with the Court, the Second Defendant effectively ceased to advance her arguments, leaving the Court with no alternative but to address the procedural vacuum created by her silence.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the Second Defendant’s failure to respond to the Registry?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the Second Defendant’s failure to respond to the Registry’s Requests constituted sufficient grounds to strike out the pending applications for permission to appeal. The legal issue was not the merits of the underlying appeals themselves, but rather whether the Court could exercise its case management powers to dispose of applications that the applicant had effectively abandoned through non-compliance with administrative inquiries. The Court had to decide if the procedural requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) permitted the summary disposal of these applications to ensure the efficient administration of justice and to prevent the clogging of the Court’s docket with dormant matters.
How did H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the Court’s case management powers to resolve the status of the appeal applications?
The Court exercised its inherent authority to manage its own proceedings, specifically invoking the power to strike out applications where a party fails to comply with the Court’s procedural requirements. The reasoning was straightforward: the Registry had provided the Second Defendant with multiple opportunities to clarify her intentions, and her failure to respond was interpreted as a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals.
The Court’s decision was grounded in the necessity of maintaining procedural discipline. By failing to respond to the Registry’s Requests, the Second Defendant left the Court with no basis to keep the applications active. Consequently, the Court utilized its authority under the RDC to remove the applications from the record, thereby finalizing the dismissal of the Second Defendant’s challenges. The reasoning is summarized by the Court’s reliance on the following sequence:
Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 1 August 2022 dismissing the Second Defendant’s application to stay the proceedings pursuant to its referral of the proceedings to the Joint Judicial Committee (the “First Order”) AND UPON the Order of H.E.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural authorities were applied in this order?
The primary authority cited for the strike-out order is Rule 4.12 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Rule 4.12 provides the Court with the power to strike out a statement of case or an application if it appears that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. In this instance, the "failure to comply" was the Second Defendant’s omission to respond to the Registry’s inquiries, which were treated as essential procedural steps for the progression of the appeal applications.
How did the Court utilize the history of the First and Second Orders in its final determination?
The Court utilized the First Order (dated 1 August 2022) and the Second Order (dated 7 September 2022) as the foundational context for the appeal applications. The First Order had dismissed the application to stay proceedings, while the Second Order had dismissed the application to contest jurisdiction. By referencing these orders, the Court established that the matters the Second Defendant sought to appeal had already been adjudicated and that the current order was merely the final procedural step in closing the door on those specific challenges. The Court’s reliance on these previous orders ensured that the record clearly reflected that the appellate process had been initiated but subsequently abandoned by the applicant.
What was the final outcome and the specific relief ordered by the Court on 11 April 2023?
The Court ordered that the First PTA and the Second PTA be struck out in their entirety. This disposition effectively terminated the Second Defendant’s attempts to appeal the jurisdictional and stay-of-proceedings rulings. The order was issued by the Assistant Registrar, Hayley Norton, on behalf of the Court, and it serves as a final procedural bar to any further appellate action regarding those specific orders. No further monetary relief or costs were detailed in this specific order, as the focus remained strictly on the procedural disposal of the dormant applications.
What are the wider implications of this order for DIFC practitioners regarding procedural non-compliance?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that the DIFC Court Registry’s inquiries are not merely administrative formalities but are treated as essential procedural steps. A failure to respond to Registry requests can lead to the summary strike-out of applications, even those as significant as applications for permission to appeal. Litigants must ensure that they maintain active communication with the Court; otherwise, they risk the involuntary termination of their legal challenges. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of monitoring all correspondence from the Registry and responding within the requested timeframes to avoid the application of RDC Rule 4.12.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mad Atelier International B.V. v Axel Manes [2023] DIFC CFI 030?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0302022-mad-atelier-international-bv-v-1-axel-manes-2-catherine-zhilla-11
The document is also available via the following CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-030-2022_20230411.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Rule 4.12