What was the core factual dispute between Anastasiia Denisova and Aleksei Galtcev regarding the 10,000 shares in Realiste Holding?
The litigation centers on a contested share transfer involving 10,000 ordinary shares in the Second Defendant, Realiste Holding Ltd. The Claimant, Anastasiia Denisova, asserted that she had purchased these shares from the First Defendant, Aleksei Galtcev, for a consideration of USD 1,000. The dispute escalated when the Claimant later agreed to sell 4,000 of those shares to a third party for USD 200,000. Upon the Claimant’s instruction to transfer the shares to the purchaser, the First Defendant refused, alleging that the initial payment of USD 1,000 had never been made. Consequently, the First Defendant unilaterally cancelled the Claimant’s shares in the company’s register.
The trial judge directed a preliminary issue to determine whether the Claimant had indeed paid the USD 1,000 for the shares. Following a one-day trial, the court ruled in favor of the Claimant, finding that the payment had been made. As noted in the judgment:
“I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that the Claimant paid USD1,000 to the First Defendant for the Claimed Shares.”
The Defendants subsequently sought to challenge this finding, leading to the current Renewed Application for permission to appeal.
Which judge presided over the Renewed Application for permission to appeal in CFI 041/2024?
The Renewed Application for permission to appeal was heard and determined by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin. The order, issued on 8 October 2025, followed a series of previous orders by H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani, who had presided over the trial of the preliminary issue and the initial refusal of permission to appeal.
What arguments did the Defendants advance in their Renewed Application to challenge the trial judge’s findings?
The Defendants, Aleksei Galtcev and Realiste Holding Ltd, sought to overturn the trial judge’s determination on the preliminary issue and the subsequent costs order. Their primary contention was that the trial judge erred in her factual assessment regarding the payment of USD 1,000. Furthermore, the Defendants challenged the quantum of the costs awarded to the Claimant. While the Defendants did not contest the principle that they were liable for the Claimant's costs, they disputed the specific amount of USD 50,000 assessed by the court.
As detailed in the court’s summary:
“As noted, the Judge ordered that the Defendants were to pay the Claimant’s costs of the preliminary issue and made directions for the exchange of submissions in relation to the quantum of those costs. The Defendants do not challenge the order that they pay the Claimant’s costs, at least not until they successfully appeal from the determination of the preliminary issue, but challenge the Judge’s quantification of those costs at USD 50,000.”
What was the precise legal question the Chief Justice had to answer regarding the Renewed Application?
The Chief Justice was tasked with determining whether the Defendants had met the threshold for granting permission to appeal under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the court had to decide whether the appeal had a "real prospect of success" or if there existed "any other compelling reason" for the appeal to be heard. This required an evaluation of whether the trial judge’s findings of fact—which were heavily dependent on witness credibility and the assessment of evidence—were susceptible to appellate interference.
How did the Chief Justice apply the "real prospect of success" test to the Defendants' arguments?
Chief Justice Wayne Martin reviewed the procedural history and the trial judge’s reasoning, concluding that the trial judge’s findings were based on a logical assessment of the evidence presented. The court emphasized that the trial judge had carefully considered the Claimant’s evidence and the Defendants' assertions before reaching her conclusion. The Chief Justice found no error in the trial judge's approach to the evidence or her evaluation of witness credibility.
Regarding the necessity of the appeal, the Chief Justice stated:
“For the reasons which follow, the appeal would have no real prospect of success nor is there any other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, and the Renewed Application must be dismissed w”
The court determined that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis that would justify overturning the trial judge’s decision, thereby necessitating the dismissal of the application.
Which RDC rules and procedural authorities were central to the court’s assessment of costs?
The court relied heavily on RDC 38.2, which governs the assessment of costs on a standard basis, requiring that costs be reasonable and proportionate. The court also referenced RDC 44.5 and 44.19 regarding the criteria for permission to appeal. The trial judge had previously utilized a "broadbrush approach" to assess the Claimant's costs, as the Claimant’s schedule did not itemize costs for every discrete task.
As noted in the judgment:
“Taking into account all the matters set out above, and bearing in mind that the Claimant’s costs schedule does not set out the Claimant’s costs relating to each application or discrete task, I apply a broadbrush approach in assessing the Claimant’s costs, and in applying an appropriate discount to the full costs claimed such that the costs recovered are both reasonable and proportionate in accordance with RDC 38.2.”
How did the court handle the discrepancy between the Claimant’s submitted costs and the final assessment?
The court noted that the Claimant had originally submitted a schedule of costs totaling USD 76,591.50, which included disbursements of USD 1,200. The trial judge, in her assessment, had to reconcile these figures with the requirement for proportionality. Furthermore, the court clarified that not all costs incurred by the Claimant were recoverable. Specifically, the court excluded costs related to an unsuccessful application for default judgment, noting:
“In relation to the Application for Default Judgment, the Judge considered that the costs of that application were not recoverable as part of the Claimant’s costs relating to the preliminary issue.”
What was the final disposition of the Renewed Application and the associated orders for costs?
The Chief Justice dismissed the Renewed Application in its entirety. Consequently, the Defendants were ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs of the Renewed Application. The court set out a strict timeline for the assessment of these costs: the Claimant must file a Statement of Costs within 21 days, the Defendants have 14 days to respond, and the Claimant has 7 days to reply. The final quantum will be assessed by the Chief Justice on the papers.
As stated in the order:
“The Defendants must pay the Claimant’s costs of the Renewed Application and directions will be made for the assessment of the quantum of those costs.”
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding appeals of factual findings?
This case serves as a reminder of the high threshold required to obtain permission to appeal in the DIFC Courts, particularly when the appeal challenges findings of fact or costs assessments. Practitioners should anticipate that the court will be reluctant to interfere with a trial judge’s assessment of evidence and witness credibility, provided the reasoning is logical and consistent with the RDC. Furthermore, the use of a "broadbrush approach" to costs assessment highlights the importance of maintaining detailed and accurate cost schedules to ensure maximum recovery. Litigants must ensure that their grounds for appeal are grounded in clear legal error rather than mere disagreement with the trial judge’s factual conclusions.
Where can I read the full judgment in ANASTASIIA DENISOVA v ALEKSEI GALTCEV [2025] DIFC CFI 041?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0412024-anastasiia-denisova-v-1-aleksei-galtcev-2-realiste-holding-ltd-3
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this specific order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): RDC 38.2, RDC 44.5, RDC 44.19