The DIFC Court of First Instance has clarified the procedural pathway for defendants seeking to challenge the court's jurisdiction after a default judgment has been entered, emphasizing the threshold of "real prospect of success" under RDC 14.2.
What is the nature of the dispute between Dimension B+ and Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi and what is the monetary value at stake?
The litigation concerns a substantial financial claim initiated by Dimension B+ Ltd, a company incorporated in the Seychelles, against Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi, a UAE national. The dispute centers on a claim for the recovery of funds, which the Claimant formally initiated in the DIFC Court of First Instance in late 2024.
As noted in the court’s schedule of reasons:
On 17 December 2024, the Claimant filed the Claim against the Defendant claiming the sum of AED 4,750,000.
The case highlights the complexities of cross-border service and the subsequent procedural hurdles when a defendant challenges the court’s authority to adjudicate a claim of this magnitude after a default judgment has been entered.
Which judge presided over the application to set aside the default judgment in CFI 094/2024?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, issued on 19 June 2025, followed a series of procedural steps, including the initial granting of the default judgment on 27 May 2025 and the subsequent filing of the defendant’s application to set aside that judgment on 4 June 2025.
How did Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi argue for the dismissal of the claim brought by Dimension B+?
The Defendant, Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi, adopted a two-pronged strategy to challenge the proceedings. Upon filing his Acknowledgement of Service, the Defendant signaled his intent to defend the entirety of the claim while simultaneously asserting that the DIFC Courts lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The procedural posture of the Defendant is described as follows:
On 4 June 2025, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service seeking to defend all of the Claim, however, in his Acknowledgment of Service he is contesting the Jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. On the same date, the Defendant filed an Application Notice to set aside the Default Judgment, dismiss the Claimant’s Claim due to lack of jurisdiction and legal costs.
By combining the request to set aside the default judgment with a formal challenge to jurisdiction, the Defendant sought to halt the enforcement of the AED 4,750,000 claim before the court could proceed to substantive merits.
What specific legal threshold must a defendant meet under RDC 14.2 to set aside a default judgment in the DIFC?
The primary legal question before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser was whether the Defendant had established sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the default judgment under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the court had to determine if the Defendant met the criteria set out in RDC 14.2, which requires a showing that there is a "real prospect of successfully defending the claim." This is a substantive threshold that requires the defendant to present more than a mere assertion of a defense; it necessitates a demonstration that the defense has a realistic, rather than fanciful, chance of success if the matter were to proceed to trial.
How did H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser apply the RDC 14.2 test to the submissions of Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi?
The court’s reasoning focused on the evidence presented by the Defendant regarding his potential defense. Justice Al Nasser evaluated the submissions to determine if the Defendant had met the burden of proof required to reopen the case. Finding that the Defendant’s arguments were sufficient to satisfy the court's procedural requirements, the judge ruled in favor of setting aside the judgment.
The court’s finding was articulated as follows:
Upon reviewing the Defendant’s submissions, I find that in accordance with RDC 14.2 the Defendant has demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the Claim.
This reasoning underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that defendants are not unfairly prejudiced by default judgments when there is a legitimate, arguable defense, particularly when jurisdictional competence is in question.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural statutes were applied by the court in CFI 094/2024?
The court primarily relied on RDC Part 14, which governs the setting aside of default judgments. Specifically, RDC 14.2 was the operative provision cited by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser to justify the decision. Additionally, the court referenced RDC 13.1 (1) and (2), which provided the basis for the Claimant’s initial request for a default judgment. The procedural history also involved the application of RDC Part 23, which the court ordered the Defendant to utilize for the purpose of formally contesting the court's jurisdiction.
How does the requirement to file a Part 23 Application function as a procedural safeguard in DIFC jurisdictional disputes?
The court utilized the Part 23 Application as a structured mechanism to ensure that jurisdictional challenges are handled with the necessary formality and evidence. By ordering the Defendant to file a Part 23 Application, the court ensures that the jurisdictional question is not merely raised as a defense but is treated as a distinct procedural issue that must be briefed and argued. This aligns with the court's broader practice of requiring parties to clearly delineate between substantive defenses and challenges to the court's authority, thereby preventing the confusion that can arise when both are conflated in an initial response.
What was the final disposition of the application and what orders were made regarding the AED 4,750,000 claim?
The court partially granted the application filed by the Defendant. The primary outcome was the immediate setting aside of the default judgment issued on 27 May 2025. However, the court did not dismiss the claim outright; instead, it directed the Defendant to pursue a formal challenge to the court's jurisdiction.
The court’s order was as follows:
Therefore, I set aside the Default Judgment, and order that the Defendant shall file its Part 23 Application to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts within 14 days from the date of this order.
The court also ordered that the costs of the application shall be "costs in the case," meaning the ultimate liability for these costs will be determined at the conclusion of the proceedings.
How does this ruling influence the strategy for defendants facing default judgments in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court of First Instance maintains a rigorous standard for setting aside default judgments, but remains open to such applications where a "real prospect of success" can be evidenced. Practitioners must ensure that any application to set aside a default judgment is accompanied by a robust evidentiary basis that satisfies RDC 14.2. Furthermore, the case highlights the necessity of strictly adhering to the procedural timeline for filing a Part 23 Application once a default judgment is set aside, as failure to do so could result in the loss of the opportunity to challenge the court's jurisdiction.
Where can I read the full judgment in Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi [2025] DIFC CFI 094?
The full judgment and order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0942024-dimension-b-ltd-v-saleh-abdelkarim-hussain-abdelrahman-almaazmi
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in the provided order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 13
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 14
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 23