What are the specific grounds for the Unless Order issued against City Stars Trading Crude Oil and Refind Prouducts in CFI 084/2024?
The lawsuit involves a dispute between City Stars Trading Crude Oil and Refind Prouducts (the Claimant) and Langur Holding Corporation S.L (the Defendant). The current procedural impasse stems from the Claimant’s persistent failure to adhere to court-mandated obligations, specifically regarding the payment of costs previously ordered on 26 May 2025 and ongoing failures in the disclosure process. The Defendant sought an "Unless Order" to compel compliance, arguing that the Claimant’s conduct had become an intolerable burden on the judicial process.
H.E. Justice Andrew Moran found that the Claimant’s behavior demonstrated a "contumacious disregard" for the Court’s authority. The Court emphasized that the Claimant offered no valid justification for its repeated breaches, which had necessitated multiple interventions and caused significant, unnecessary costs for the Defendant. As noted in the Court’s reasoning:
The Court cannot allow it to carry on acting in breach of rules of Court, orders and directions, which would be manifestly prejudicial and costs-wasting for the Defendant, and in intolerable breach of the Overriding Objective, wasting judicial time and resources to the detriment of other litigants and the due administration of justice in this jurisdiction.
The order mandates that the Claimant pay USD 19,905.03 within 14 days or face the automatic striking out of its claims. [Source: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0842024-city-stars-trading-crude-oil-and-refind-prouducts-v-langur-holding-corporation-sl-2]
Which judge presided over the application for an Unless Order and Security for Costs in CFI 084/2024?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Andrew Moran in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The Order with Reasons was issued on 12 February 2026. The matter was decided on the documents filed by the parties, pursuant to RDC 23.6, as the parties agreed that a formal hearing was unnecessary given the clear evidence of procedural non-compliance.
What were the respective positions of City Stars Trading and Langur Holding Corporation regarding the application for security for costs?
The Defendant, represented by Mr. Bryan Dayton, argued that the Claimant’s history of procedural misconduct and failure to prosecute the claim necessitated robust protective measures. The Defendant requested security for costs in the amount of USD 266,158.21, calculated as 50% of the total incurred and estimated costs, minus the outstanding costs already ordered by the Court. The Defendant maintained that the Claimant’s conduct was disruptive and wasteful, and that the Court should exercise its discretion to ensure the Defendant was protected against further financial prejudice.
Conversely, the Claimant, acting through its legal representative Ali Abualhasan, failed to provide a substantive justification for its breaches. The Court noted that the Claimant’s response was "wholly lacking in justification" and failed to address the disruptive consequences of its actions. The Court specifically highlighted the Claimant's lack of engagement:
The Claimant offers no explanation or excuse for its breaches of the Court’s orders relating to production of documents and the disruptive and wasteful (of court time and costs) consequences thereof, described in Dayton 3 at §§17-20.
What was the jurisdictional and doctrinal question the Court had to resolve regarding the application of RDC 25.102?
The Court had to determine whether the threshold requirements for ordering security for costs under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) had been satisfied. Specifically, the Court had to apply the two-stage test: first, establishing that a condition under RDC 25.102 is met (such as the risk of non-payment or the claimant's conduct), and second, determining whether it is "just" to make the order in all the circumstances of the case.
The Court noted a minor typographical error in the parties' submissions regarding the relevant rule, clarifying the correct legal basis for the application:
At Stage 1, the applicant must establish that at least one of the conditions in RDC 25.103 (sic)
[a typographical error appears in the reasons – the conditions appear in RDC 25.102]
is met.
How did Justice Moran apply the principles of procedural fairness and the Overriding Objective to justify the security for costs order?
Justice Moran adopted a rigorous approach, citing the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings. He reasoned that the Claimant’s pattern of behavior—routinely ignoring directions and orders—had reached a point where the Court was compelled to act to prevent further prejudice to the Defendant. The Court utilized its inherent powers to ensure that if the litigation were to proceed, the Defendant would not be left without recourse for its legal costs.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the necessity of the order to maintain the balance of the litigation:
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that it is just to make an order for security for costs against the claimant in the amount of USD 250,000, and I have accordingly so ordered.
This decision was further supported by the Defendant’s compliance with RDC 25.99, which requires the provision of detailed statements of past and future costs.
Which specific RDC rules and DIFC precedents were applied by the Court in CFI 084/2024?
The Court relied on several key provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to structure its decision. Specifically, RDC 4.16(3) was cited as the authority for the Court's power to strike out claims in the face of procedural misconduct. RDC 25.102 was the primary rule invoked for the security for costs application, while RDC 25.99 governed the procedural requirements for the Defendant's application.
Regarding precedents, the Court referenced:
* Roberto’s Club v Rella [2013] DIFC CFI 019: Used to establish the principles for granting an "Unless Order."
* Vegie Bar LLC v Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties Pjsc [2016] CA 013: Applied to the two-stage analysis for assessing security for costs.
How did the Court utilize the cited precedents to reach its decision on security for costs?
The Court used Vegie Bar LLC v Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties Pjsc to frame the two-stage test for security for costs, ensuring that the application met both the statutory threshold and the requirement of justice. The Defendant’s request for USD 266,158.21 was evaluated against the principles set out in Vegie Bar, with the Court ultimately settling on a figure of USD 250,000.
The Court also relied on the Defendant’s adherence to procedural standards, noting:
The Defendant has complied with the requirements of RDC 25.99 in making its application for security and has provided as appendices 1 and 2 to the signed witness statement of Dayton 3, the required statements of past costs (incurred) and future costs (estimated).
Furthermore, the Court referenced the Defendant's calculation method, which aligned with the 50% benchmark for security often applied in DIFC practice:
The Defendant applies for security in the amount of USD 266,158.21 which (as awarded in Vegie Bar supra) is said to be 50% of the total of incurred and estimated costs (see Dayton 3 §36) less the amount of costs (USD 19,905.23) it was ordered to pay, by way of the 26 May Order.
What were the specific orders made by Justice Moran regarding costs and the continuation of the claim?
The Court issued a multi-part order:
1. Unless Order: The Claimant must pay USD 19,905.03 to the Defendant by 26 February 2026. Failure to do so results in the automatic striking out of the claims.
2. Security for Costs: If the payment is made and the case continues, the Claimant must pay USD 250,000 into court within 14 days as security for the Defendant’s costs.
3. Extension of Time: The Defendant was granted an extension of time for its disclosure obligations, necessitated by the Claimant’s previous breaches.
The conditional nature of the security order was explicitly stated:
In the event the Claimant makes the payment required by paragraph 1 above, within the time stipulated and these proceedings continue, it shall, within 14 days of making that payment, provide security for the Defendants costs of these proceedings, by payment into court of the amount of USD 250,000.
What are the practical implications of this ruling for litigants in the DIFC?
This case serves as a stark reminder that the DIFC Court will not tolerate a "contumacious disregard" for its procedural directions. Litigants who fail to comply with disclosure obligations or cost orders face the immediate risk of an "Unless Order," which can lead to the summary dismissal of their entire case. The ruling reinforces that the Court will prioritize the Overriding Objective and the efficient use of judicial resources over the interests of a non-compliant party. Practitioners must anticipate that any pattern of procedural delay will be met with strict financial conditions, including significant security for costs, to protect the opposing party from further prejudice.
Where can I read the full judgment in City Stars Trading Crude Oil And Refind Prouducts v Langur Holding Corporation S.L [2026] DIFC CFI 084?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0842024-city-stars-trading-crude-oil-and-refind-prouducts-v-langur-holding-corporation-sl-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Roberto’s Club v Rella | [2013] DIFC CFI 019 | Principles for making an unless order |
| Vegie Bar LLC v Emirates National Bank of Dubai Properties Pjsc | [2016] CA 013 | Two-stage analysis for security for costs |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 4.16 (3)
- RDC 23.6
- RDC 23.41
- RDC 25.102
- RDC 25.99