This addendum to the Court of First Instance judgment finalizes the precise monetary liabilities of the First and Second Defendants following the court’s earlier determination on interest entitlement.
What was the total monetary liability of Al Tajir Glass Industries and Transnational Pallet Industries in Siraj Power Machinery and Equipment Leasing v Al Tajir Glass Industries [2024] DIFC CFI 070?
The dispute concerns the enforcement of financial obligations arising from a lease agreement and a subsequent amendment agreement between the Claimant, Siraj Power Machinery and Equipment Leasing LLC, and the two Defendants. Following the initial judgment delivered on 18 November 2025, the court required a schedule of interest to be submitted to determine the final judgment sums. The Claimant provided a breakdown of interest accrued on Rent Invoices, Consideration Invoices, the Termination Invoice, and the Default Value.
The court’s assessment of these figures led to the finalization of the debt owed by each party. The First Defendant, Al Tajir Glass Industries LLC, was found liable for the entirety of the interest items, resulting in a total judgment sum of AED 10,674,099.46. The Second Defendant, Transnational Pallet Industries, faced a more limited liability based on the scope of its contractual obligations under the Lease Agreement. As noted in the court's findings:
The Claimant has provided the schedule which shows the interest on the Rent Invoices totals AED 108,747.47, the interest on the Consideration Invoices totals AED 77,775.08 whilst in respect of the Termination Invoice interest in respect of the purchase price payable pursuant to Provision 13(b)(ii) of the Specific Conditions under the Lease Agreement amounts to AED 552,771.23 whilst the interest in respect of the Default Value provided for in the Amendment Agreement totalled AED 108,276.85.
Which judge presided over the addendum to the judgment in CFI 070/2024 and when was it issued?
The addendum was issued by Justice Thomas Bathurst AC KC, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued on 28 November 2025, following the primary judgment delivered by the same judge on 18 November 2025.
What specific interest calculations did Siraj Power Machinery and Equipment Leasing LLC submit to the DIFC Court for approval?
The Claimant was tasked with providing a detailed schedule of interest payable on the judgment sums, calculated at a rate of 6% per annum. The Claimant’s submission categorized the interest into four distinct buckets: Rent Invoices, Consideration Invoices, the Termination Invoice (specifically regarding the purchase price under Provision 13(b)(ii) of the Specific Conditions), and the Default Value stipulated in the Amendment Agreement.
The court noted that the Claimant’s calculations, which were referenced at pages 644-648 of the Case Bundle, provided the necessary basis for the final quantification of the awards. The court relied on these figures to distinguish between the total liability of the First Defendant and the restricted liability of the Second Defendant, who was not party to all the underlying financial obligations.
What was the doctrinal issue regarding the apportionment of interest between the First and Second Defendants in CFI 070/2024?
The primary legal question for the court was the scope of liability for interest as it related to the specific contractual obligations of each Defendant. While the court had previously established the Claimant's entitlement to interest at 6% per annum, it had to determine whether the Second Defendant’s liability was co-extensive with the First Defendant’s.
The court had to interpret the Lease Agreement and the Amendment Agreement to isolate which specific invoices and default values the Second Defendant was contractually bound to satisfy. This required a precise application of the contractual terms to the interest schedule to ensure that the Second Defendant was not held liable for interest on sums for which it bore no underlying obligation.
How did Justice Thomas Bathurst AC KC apply the interest entitlement to the final judgment sums?
Justice Bathurst utilized the schedule provided by the Claimant to perform a bifurcated calculation. For the First Defendant, the court aggregated all interest components, as the First Defendant was liable for the full scope of the items listed. For the Second Defendant, the court performed a targeted exclusion, removing interest related to items outside the Second Defendant’s contractual scope.
The reasoning process is summarized by the court’s determination of the Second Defendant's specific liability:
However, as the Second Defendant is only liable for the Rent Invoices and the purchase price payable pursuant to Provision 13(b)(ii) of the Specific Conditions under the Lease Agreement and is accordingly only liable for interest on those amounts. The total of such interest is the sum of AED 661,518.70. Therefore, the judgment which should be entered against the Second Defendant is for a total sum of AED 8,454,461.02.
What specific contractual provisions and court orders formed the basis for the interest award in this matter?
The court relied on its previous order from 18 November 2025, which established the entitlement to interest at 6% per annum. The calculation of the interest was governed by the specific terms of the Lease Agreement, particularly Provision 13(b)(ii) of the Specific Conditions, and the Default Value provisions contained within the Amendment Agreement. The court’s authority to vary the judgment to include these sums is derived from the court's inherent power to clarify and finalize its own orders.
How did the court resolve the discrepancy in interest liability between the two Defendants?
The court applied a strict interpretation of the contractual obligations of the Second Defendant. By identifying that the Second Defendant was not liable for the interest on the Consideration Invoices or the Default Value provided for in the Amendment Agreement, the court successfully isolated the interest attributable to the Second Defendant.
As stated by the court:
The First Defendant is liable for the interest payable in respect of all these items. Accordingly, the total amount payable by it is AED 10,674,099.46.
This distinction ensured that the final judgment reflected the precise contractual exposure of each party, preventing an over-recovery against the Second Defendant.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief ordered by the court on 28 November 2025?
The court varied the original orders made on 18 November 2025 to reflect the final calculated sums. The disposition was as follows:
Accordingly, I would vary Orders 1 and 2 of the Orders made by me on 18 November 2025 to provide as follows: (a) Judgment is entered for the Claimant against the First Defendant in an amount of AED 10,674,099.46. (b) Judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Second Defendant in an amount of AED 8,454,461.02.
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the submission of interest schedules?
This case highlights the importance of meticulous interest scheduling in complex commercial litigation where multiple defendants have varying degrees of contractual liability. Practitioners must ensure that interest schedules are not only accurate in their arithmetic but also clearly mapped to the specific contractual obligations of each defendant. Failure to properly delineate liability for interest can lead to the necessity of subsequent addendums to clarify judgment sums, potentially causing delays in enforcement and execution.
Where can I read the full judgment in Siraj Power Machinery And Equipment Leasing LLC v (1) Al Tajir Glass Industries LLC (2) Transnational Pallet Industries [2024] DIFC CFI 070?
The full judgment and the addendum can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/siraj-power-machinery-and-equipment-leasing-llc-v-1-al-tajir-glass-industries-llc-2-transnational-pallet-industries-2024-difc-cf-1
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Lease Agreement (Specific Conditions, Provision 13(b)(ii))
- Amendment Agreement
- DIFC Court Rules (RDC)