This order clarifies the procedural requirements for filing an appeal in the DIFC Courts when a substantive decision has been issued without accompanying written reasons, reinforcing the court's commitment to ensuring parties have the necessary information to evaluate their appellate options.
What was the specific dispute in CFI 079/2023 that necessitated an application for an extension of time to appeal?
The underlying litigation involves a complex dispute between Claimants Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid and Moustafa El Sayed Abdulghani El Shafaei and Respondents Nasser Shehata, Health Insights FZ-LLC, and Health Insights Asia (L) BHD. Following an intensive 8-day trial, H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere issued an Order on 17 September 2025 that dismissed several significant interlocutory applications, including the Claimants' attempt to amend their Particulars of Claim and the First and Third Defendants' requests regarding disclosure, joinder of parties, and the filing of responsive witness evidence.
The First and Third Defendants subsequently sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against this Order. The necessity for this application arose because the court had not yet provided the written reasons for its 17 September 2025 decision, leaving the parties without the judicial analysis required to determine the viability of an appeal. As noted in the court's records:
By application No. CFI-079-2023/12 issued on 3 October 2025, the First and Third Defendants have applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Order of H.E.
The Claimants did not oppose the application, acknowledging the practical difficulty of assessing the merits of an appeal in the absence of the court's reasoning. The full details of the application can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the application for an extension of time in CFI 079/2023?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 31 October 2025, following the Defendants' application filed on 3 October 2025.
What arguments did Habib Al Mulla and Partners advance on behalf of the First and Third Defendants regarding the extension of time?
Represented by Dr. Karen Seif, Counsel and Head of Arbitration at Habib Al Mulla and Partners, the First and Third Defendants argued that an extension was essential to preserve their procedural rights. They contended that they had acted with appropriate diligence, noting that the application was filed within 21 days of the Order's issuance and immediately following a demanding 8-day trial. Dr. Seif highlighted that the First Defendant had been under cross-examination for the final three days of the trial, which had hindered his ability to provide timely instructions.
The Defendants emphasized that they were not seeking to delay the proceedings but rather to ensure they could make an informed decision regarding a potential appeal once the court's reasoning was available. The court found this position reasonable, noting:
The Application is supported by the witness statement of Dr Karen Seif, Counsel and Head of Arbitration at Habib Al Mulla and Partners, the firm representing the First and Third Defendants. The Application seeks an extension of time until 21 days after the reasons for the order of 17 September 2025 are made available.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere had to answer regarding the timing of an appeal under RDC 44.10?
The court was tasked with determining whether it should exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal when the standard 21-day period prescribed by RDC 44.10 was expiring without the provision of written reasons for the underlying decision. The central issue was whether the absence of judicial reasoning constitutes a "material consideration" that justifies a departure from the default timeline, thereby upholding the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to deal with cases justly and efficiently.
How did H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere apply the doctrine of procedural fairness to the request for an extension?
Justice Le Miere applied the principle that parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to evaluate the court's reasoning before being forced to commit to the appellate process. By referencing established jurisprudence, the court determined that the absence of reasons is a fundamental factor in managing the timeline for appeals. The court reasoned that providing an extension until 21 days after the promulgation of reasons is the standard and fair practice.
The Court accepts that the absence of reasons for the decision is a material consideration.
Furthermore, the court evaluated the conduct of the parties, concluding that the Defendants had acted with the necessary promptness. The court emphasized that the extension was not a tactic for delay but a necessary measure to ensure that any potential appeal would be based on a full understanding of the court's findings.
In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that it is just and appropriate to grant the Application.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory provisions were cited in the determination of CFI 079/2023?
The court relied on several key provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to justify the extension. Specifically, RDC 44.6(2) was cited as the rule governing the filing of an appellant’s notice, while RDC 44.10 provided the framework for the court to direct the time period for such filings. Additionally, the court invoked RDC 4.2(1), which grants the DIFC Court broad discretion to extend the time for compliance with any rule or order. Finally, the court referenced RDC 1.6, which mandates that the court must deal with cases in a manner that is just and efficient, serving as the overarching principle for the exercise of its discretion.
How did the court utilize English and DIFC precedents to support the decision to grant the extension?
The court utilized McDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4 to establish that while time for appeal generally runs from the date of the decision, it is standard practice for lower courts to extend that time until after the reasons are provided. This ensures that parties are not prejudiced by the court's own administrative timeline.
As noted in McDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4, where a judge announces a decision with reasons to follow, time for appeal begins to run from the date of the decision.
Additionally, the court cited the DIFC precedent Kralj v Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 025. In that case, the court had previously exercised its discretion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal even after the initial deadline had passed. Justice Le Miere used this authority to confirm that the DIFC Court possesses the inherent power to manage its own timelines to uphold the overriding objective of fairness.
The Court also notes the decision in Kralj v Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 025, where H.E.
What was the final outcome and specific relief granted by the court in this order?
The court granted the First and Third Defendants' application in full. The specific order issued by H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere extended the time for filing a notice of appeal against the 17 September 2025 Order until 21 days after the written reasons for that decision are made available to the parties. This effectively paused the appellate clock, ensuring that the Defendants' right to appeal remains preserved until they have the necessary information to proceed.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC practitioners?
This order serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court prioritizes procedural fairness over rigid adherence to timelines when the court itself has not yet provided the necessary documentation for a party to make an informed decision. Practitioners should note that while RDC 44.10 sets a default 21-day period, the court is willing to grant extensions where reasons are pending, provided the applicant has acted promptly. Litigants should not hesitate to apply for such extensions if they find themselves in a position where the lack of written reasons prevents them from properly assessing the merits of an appeal.
Where can I read the full judgment in Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid v Nasser Shehata [2025] DIFC CFI 079?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0792023-1-thamer-abdulaziz-albulaihid-2-moustafa-el-sayed-abdulghani-el-shafaei-v-1-nasser-shehata-2-health-insights-fz-llc-7 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-079-2023_20251031.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| McDonald v Rose | [2019] EWCA Civ 4 | To establish the standard practice of extending time for appeal until reasons are provided. |
| Kralj v Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited | [2023] DIFC CFI 025 | To confirm the court's power to extend time for compliance under RDC 4.2(1). |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 1.6 (Overriding Objective)
- RDC 4.2(1) (Court's power to extend time)
- RDC 44.6(2) (Appellant’s notice requirements)
- RDC 44.10 (Time for filing notice of appeal)