This order marks the formal entry of a significant default judgment in the DIFC Court of First Instance, confirming the liability of the Second Defendant for a multi-million dollar banking debt following a failure to file a defence.
What was the total monetary value of the claim brought by Bankmed against Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas in CFI 033/2017?
The lawsuit concerns a substantial commercial banking dispute initiated by Bankmed (SAL) against Fast Telecom General Trading LLC and five individual defendants, including Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas. The claim centers on a specified sum of money arising from banking facilities provided by the Claimant. The litigation reached a critical juncture regarding the Second Defendant, who failed to respond to the proceedings within the court-mandated timeframe.
The court ultimately entered a default judgment against the Second Defendant for the principal amount and significant accrued interest. As specified in the order:
The Second Defendant jointly and/or severally shall pay the Claimant the sum of USD $ 14,463,479.03 plus interest at the rate of 12.4 % per annum. 12.
The total financial exposure for the Second Defendant is substantial, reflecting both the principal debt and the interest calculations verified by the court. Further details regarding the claim can be found at the official DIFC Courts judgment portal.
Which judicial officer presided over the default judgment application in CFI 033/2017?
The default judgment application was presided over by Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser within the Court of First Instance of the DIFC Courts. The order was issued on 16 September 2020, following a request submitted by the Claimant on 2 September 2020.
What procedural failures led the court to grant a default judgment against Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas?
The Claimant argued that the Second Defendant, Ali Mohammed Salem Abu Adas, had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) after being properly served. Specifically, the Claimant asserted that the Second Defendant failed to file a Statement of Defence within the 14-day window stipulated by the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 12 August 2020 and the subsequent registry notification on 16 August 2020.
The Claimant maintained that the Second Defendant had not sought to strike out the statement of case under RDC 4.16, nor had he applied for immediate judgment under RDC Part 24. Furthermore, the Second Defendant failed to satisfy the claim or file an admission with a request for time to pay. Consequently, the Claimant moved for judgment under RDC 13.1, asserting that all procedural prerequisites for a default judgment had been satisfied.
What jurisdictional and procedural questions did the court have to resolve before granting the default judgment?
The court was required to determine whether the procedural threshold for a default judgment under RDC 13 had been met, specifically regarding the court’s power to hear the claim and the validity of service. The court had to verify that the claim was not prohibited by RDC 13.3, that the time for filing a defence had expired, and that the Claimant had provided sufficient evidence to establish the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction over the dispute.
How did Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser verify that the DIFC Courts possessed the requisite jurisdiction to enter this judgment?
Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser conducted a review of the evidence submitted by the Claimant to ensure compliance with the RDC, particularly regarding the service of process on defendants located outside the jurisdiction. The court confirmed that the procedural steps mandated by RDC 13.22 and 13.23 were satisfied.
The court’s reasoning was grounded in the evidentiary requirements set out in the RDC:
The Claimant has 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). [Q2]
By confirming these elements, the court established that the default judgment was procedurally sound and that the Claimant had met the burden of proof required to obtain the relief sought.
Which specific RDC rules were applied by the court to validate the Claimant’s request for default judgment?
The court relied on a series of RDC provisions to validate the Claimant's request. Specifically, RDC 13.1(1) and (2) provided the basis for the request for default judgment. The court confirmed that the request was not prohibited by RDC 13.3(1) or (2). Furthermore, the court verified that the Second Defendant had failed to file a defence within the time limits prescribed by RDC 13.4(1) and (2) and 13.5(1).
The court also ensured that the Claimant had followed the procedural requirements for obtaining a default judgment as outlined in RDC 13.7 and 13.8. Additionally, the court confirmed that the claim was for a specified sum of money, satisfying the requirements of RDC 13.9.
How did the court address the Claimant’s request for interest pursuant to RDC 13.14?
The court reviewed the interest calculation provided in the Claim Form to ensure it aligned with the procedural requirements of RDC 13.14. The court found that the Claimant had correctly set out the calculation of interest, which allowed the court to grant the request for both the accrued interest and the future daily interest rate.
As noted in the findings:
The Request includes a request for interest pursuant to RDC 13.14 and the Claim Form sets out the calculation of interest in the claim. [Q5]
This allowed the court to formalize the interest obligations, ensuring the Claimant was compensated for the delay in payment from the specified date of 30 November 2016.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief awarded to the Claimant?
The court granted the request for default judgment in its entirety. The Second Defendant was ordered to pay the principal sum of USD $14,463,479.03, along with interest at a rate of 12.4% per annum. Additionally, the court ordered the payment of accrued interest for the period between 30 November 2016 and 2 September 2020.
The specific orders regarding interest were as follows:
The Second Defendant jointly and/or severally shall pay the Claimant interest in the sum of USD $6,943,000 from the date 30 November 2016 until 2 September 2020. 13.
Furthermore, the court established a daily rate for future interest:
The interest shall accrue at a daily rate of USD $5,260.00 from the date the Default Judgment is issued until the date of payment. 14.
The Second Defendant was also ordered to bear the costs of the application, to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed upon by the parties.
What are the practical implications for litigants seeking default judgments in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder of the strict procedural adherence required by the DIFC Courts when seeking a default judgment. Litigants must ensure that all evidence required under RDC 13.24—specifically regarding jurisdiction, service, and the absence of exclusive jurisdiction in other courts—is meticulously documented. The court’s reliance on the Claimant’s adherence to RDC 13.7 and 13.8 underscores that procedural precision is the primary gateway to obtaining a default judgment in high-value commercial disputes.
Where can I read the full judgment in Bankmed (SAL) v Fast Telecom General Trading LLC [2020] DIFC CFI 033?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at the following link: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-033-2017-bankmed-sal-trading-in-the-difc-under-the-trade-name-bankmed-dubai-v-1fast-telecom-general-trading-llc-2-ali-mohamm-1.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): 4.16, 13.1(1), 13.1(2), 13.3(1), 13.3(2), 13.4(1), 13.4(2), 13.5(1), 13.6(1), 13.6(3), 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.14, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24, 15.14, 15.24, Part 24.