This order addresses the court's intolerance for unreasonable opposition to procedural extensions, emphasizing the duty of parties to cooperate in the efficient management of litigation.
What were the specific circumstances necessitating the Claimant’s application for an extension of time in CFI 058/2024?
The dispute between Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan and Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari involves a Part 7 claim initiated in August 2024. Following the filing of Re-Amended Particulars of Claim and a subsequent Amended Defence by the Defendant, the Claimant found himself unable to meet the court-mandated deadline for filing a reply. The delay was precipitated by unforeseen personal and logistical crises that hindered the Claimant's ability to finalize his pleadings.
As detailed in the court's schedule of reasons, the Claimant sought a further extension beyond the initial two-day grace period granted by the Registry. The justification provided was rooted in significant external pressures:
The Claimant seeks a further extension to take account of the fact that a medical emergency involving a close family member required him to travel to India at short notice and his usual assistant was stranded in Sri Lanka by flooding.
The Claimant ultimately filed the reply on 17 December 2025, despite the Defendant’s formal objection to the extension request filed on 12 December 2025.
Which judge presided over the application for an extension of time in CFI 058/2024 and in which division was the order issued?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The Amended Order with Reasons was issued on 21 January 2026, following the initial Order of 15 January 2026, to address the procedural dispute regarding the Claimant’s request for an extension of time to file a reply to the Defendant’s Amended Defence.
What were the respective positions of Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan and Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari regarding the requested procedural extension?
The Claimant argued that the extension was necessitated by unavoidable circumstances, specifically a family medical emergency and the unavailability of his support staff due to natural disasters. He maintained that the delay was excusable and that the extension was required to ensure the proper filing of the reply to the Defendant’s Amended Defence.
Conversely, the Defendant, Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari, formally objected to the Claimant’s application. By filing an objection on 12 December 2025, the Defendant signaled a refusal to accommodate the Claimant’s logistical difficulties. The court found this stance to be obstructive, noting that the Defendant failed to recognize the validity of the Claimant's circumstances. The court’s assessment of the Defendant's position was stark, concluding that the opposition was not only meritless but also a contributing factor to the unnecessary expenditure of judicial and party resources.
What was the primary legal question regarding the duty of parties to consent to procedural extensions under the RDC?
The court was tasked with determining whether the Defendant’s refusal to consent to a "relatively modest" extension of time constituted unreasonable conduct under the Rules of the Courts of the DIFC (RDC). The doctrinal issue centered on the obligation of litigants to act in a manner that facilitates the overriding objective of the RDC—namely, the just, fair, and efficient resolution of disputes. The court had to decide if the Defendant’s objection to the extension, given the specific, documented emergencies cited by the Claimant, breached the standard of cooperation expected of parties in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
How did H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC apply the test of reasonableness to the Defendant’s conduct in CFI 058/2024?
Justice Stewart evaluated the Defendant's conduct by weighing the nature of the request against the justification provided. He determined that the extension sought was minor and that the reasons provided by the Claimant were genuine and compelling. By failing to acknowledge these factors, the Defendant failed to meet the standard of professional conduct expected in procedural matters.
The judge’s reasoning focused on the lack of validity in the Defendant's objections, leading to the conclusion that the opposition was an unreasonable use of the court's time. As stated in the schedule of reasons:
I consider that the Defendant should have consented, in the circumstances, to the relatively modest extension sought.
Furthermore, the court explicitly linked this lack of cooperation to the broader conduct of the parties throughout the litigation, noting that the Defendant's refusal to agree to the extension was a tactical error that warranted a cost penalty.
Which specific RDC rules and prior orders informed the court's decision in CFI 058/2024?
The court relied on the general case management powers granted under the Rules of the Courts of the DIFC (RDC). While the order does not cite a specific rule number, it operates under the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage proceedings and award costs. The court also referenced its own prior procedural history, specifically the Order with Reasons of 29 October 2025 and the Order of 22 September 2025, which had previously set the framework for the case's progression.
How did the court use the prior Order of 22 September 2025 to frame the current dispute?
The court utilized the prior orders to establish a narrative of the litigation's history, emphasizing that the parties had been previously directed to attempt a serious settlement. By citing the earlier orders, Justice Stewart highlighted that the current procedural squabble was inconsistent with the court's previous guidance. The court noted:
The relevant background and essential procedural position are summarised in the reasons accompanying the Order of 22 September 2025 and the reasons accompanying the Order.
This contextualization served to demonstrate that the court had already signaled its desire for the parties to focus on the substance of the dispute rather than engaging in obstructive procedural tactics.
What was the final disposition of the Claimant’s application and the resulting order for costs?
The court granted the Claimant’s application for an extension of time. Consequently, the Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the Claimant "in any event." The court mandated a summary assessment process, requiring the Claimant to submit a statement of costs by 27 January 2026, with the Defendant permitted to file objections by 3 February 2026. The court’s decision to award costs was a direct consequence of its finding that the Defendant’s opposition was unreasonable.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners appearing before the DIFC Court of First Instance?
This case serves as a warning to practitioners that the DIFC Court will not tolerate the unreasonable withholding of consent for procedural extensions, particularly when the request is modest and supported by valid reasons. Practitioners must advise clients that obstructive behavior in procedural matters—especially when the sums at issue are modest—is likely to result in adverse cost orders. The court’s emphasis on the "behaviour of the parties" suggests that a party's overall conduct in the litigation will be scrutinized when determining the fairness of procedural objections.
Where can I read the full judgment in Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari [2026] DIFC CFI 058?
The full text of the Amended Order with Reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0582024-atul-dhawan-ashok-amir-chand-dhawan-v-ramzi-wahib-el-jaouhari-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law precedents were cited in the text of this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the Courts of the DIFC (“RDC”)