The DIFC Court of First Instance issued a significant default judgment against Rafiq Ghassan Rafiq Shabib, mandating the payment of over AED 8.1 million in a civil claim brought by Perridon Holdings Limited.
What was the total monetary value of the claim brought by Perridon Holdings Limited against Rafiq Ghassan Rafiq Shabib in CFI 044/2023?
The litigation centers on a substantial financial dispute between Perridon Holdings Limited and the defendant, Rafiq Ghassan Rafiq Shabib. The claimant sought recovery of a specified sum of money, which the court ultimately validated through the default judgment process. The total principal amount awarded to the claimant reflects the significant financial stakes involved in this civil matter.
The Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant the amount of AED 8,139,981.50 plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this Judgment until the date of full payment.
This order confirms the court's acceptance of the claimant's financial demand, which was processed after the defendant failed to engage with the judicial proceedings. The judgment serves as a final determination of the debt owed by the defendant to the claimant, inclusive of interest accruals.
Which judge presided over the default judgment application in the DIFC Court of First Instance on 9 August 2023?
The application for default judgment in CFI 044/2023 was presided over by H.E. Nassir Al Nasser. The order was issued within the Court of First Instance, marking a definitive conclusion to the procedural phase of the case following the defendant's failure to respond to the claim.
What specific procedural failures by Rafiq Ghassan Rafiq Shabib led to the entry of default judgment under RDC 13.4?
Perridon Holdings Limited moved for default judgment on the basis that the defendant had failed to participate in the litigation process. The claimant argued that the defendant had been properly served and had been afforded the requisite time to respond, yet had failed to take any action to defend the claim or acknowledge the court's jurisdiction.
The Defendant has failed to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence to the Claim (or any part of the Claim) with the DIFC Courts and the relevant time for so doing has expired in accordance with RDC 13.4.
The claimant maintained that the procedural requirements for default judgment were fully satisfied, noting that the defendant had not sought to strike out the statement of case under RDC 4.16, nor had he applied for immediate judgment or filed an admission of the debt. Consequently, the claimant requested that the court exercise its authority to enter judgment in the absence of a defense.
What jurisdictional conditions did the DIFC Court have to satisfy under RDC 13.24 before granting the request for default judgment?
The court was required to address the threshold issue of its own jurisdiction and the validity of the service of process. Before granting the relief sought by Perridon Holdings Limited, the court had to verify that the claim fell within the ambit of the DIFC Courts' authority and that the defendant had been properly notified of the proceedings.
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 in accordance with RDC 13.22 and 13.23.
This doctrinal requirement ensures that the court does not inadvertently exercise power over matters outside its remit or over parties who have not been properly served. By confirming these conditions, the court established the legal foundation for the subsequent order against the defendant.
How did H.E. Nassir Al Nasser apply the procedural requirements of RDC 13.7 and 13.8 to the request for default judgment?
The court conducted a rigorous review of the procedural steps taken by the claimant to ensure compliance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts. H.E. Nassir Al Nasser examined whether the claimant had adhered to the specific protocols governing default judgments, ensuring that the defendant’s rights were not bypassed without due process.
The Claimant has followed the required procedure for obtaining Default Judgment in accordance with RDC 13.7 and 13.8.
The reasoning involved verifying that the claim was for a specified sum of money and that the claimant had provided the necessary documentation, including a Certificate of Service filed on 5 July 2023. By confirming that these procedural milestones were met, the court satisfied itself that the entry of judgment was both procedurally sound and substantively justified.
Which specific RDC rules were cited by the court to establish the validity of the service and the timing of the default judgment?
The court relied on a series of RDC provisions to validate the procedural history of the case. Specifically, the court referenced RDC 9.43 regarding the Certificate of Service, and RDC 13.22 and 13.23 regarding the conditions for service. Furthermore, the court utilized RDC 13.1, 13.3, 13.4, and 13.6(1) to confirm that the request for default judgment was not prohibited and that the defendant had exhausted his time to respond.
How did the court utilize RDC 13.14 to justify the inclusion of interest in the final judgment?
The court applied RDC 13.14 to address the claimant's request for interest on the principal sum. This rule allows for the inclusion of interest in a default judgment provided that the claim form clearly sets out the calculation of such interest.
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.
By validating the claimant's interest calculation under this rule, the court ensured that the final judgment amount accurately reflected the financial loss incurred by the claimant, including the time value of money from the date of the judgment until full payment is made.
What were the specific financial orders made by the court regarding legal costs and court fees in CFI 044/2023?
In addition to the principal sum and interest, the court ordered the defendant to reimburse the claimant for the costs associated with the litigation. These orders are intended to indemnify the claimant for the expenses incurred in pursuing the claim through the DIFC Court system.
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant its legal costs in the sum of AED 66,920.30.
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fees in the sum of AED 47,481.09.
These specific awards for legal costs and court fees ensure that the claimant is not left out-of-pocket for the necessary expenses of enforcing their rights in court, following the defendant's failure to respond.
What does this judgment imply for future litigants regarding the necessity of filing an Acknowledgment of Service in the DIFC?
This case serves as a clear reminder of the risks associated with ignoring DIFC Court proceedings. Litigants who fail to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence within the prescribed time limits under RDC 13.4 face the immediate risk of a default judgment being entered against them. The court’s willingness to grant the full amount claimed, including interest and costs, underscores the importance of active participation in the litigation process. Practitioners must advise clients that the DIFC Courts will strictly enforce procedural timelines, and a failure to engage will likely result in a binding and enforceable judgment without the benefit of a trial on the merits.
Where can I read the full judgment in Perridon Holdings Limited v Rafiq Ghassan Rafiq Shabib [2023] DIFC CFI 044?
The full judgment can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0442023-perridon-holdings-limited-v-rafiq-ghassan-rafiq-shabib-1. A copy is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-044-2023_20230809.txt.
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): 4.16, 9.43, 13.1, 13.3, 13.4, 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.