This order addresses the consequences of a claimant’s failure to adhere to procedural deadlines in a Part 8 claim, emphasizing the court's intolerance for repetitive excuses in the absence of genuine attempts at compliance.
Why did Bhanu Choudhrie file an application to vary and stay the 30 January 2026 Order in CFI 098/2025?
The dispute arises from a Part 8 claim initiated by Bhanu Choudhrie against Dhariya Choudhrie and Anita Choudhrie. Following a hearing held on 16 January 2026, H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke issued an order on 30 January 2026. Dissatisfied with the requirements imposed—specifically those outlined in paragraph 5 of that order—the Claimant filed Application No. CFI-098-2025/1 on 13 February 2026.
The Claimant sought an extension of time to formally file and serve an application to vary and stay the initial order. Despite the court granting procedural leeway through a Consent Order dated 25 February 2026, which extended the deadlines for submitting evidence related to the extension request, the Claimant failed to satisfy the court that a stay or variation was warranted. The court noted that the Claimant’s primary justification for the delay involved practical difficulties in obtaining document disclosure from the English courts, yet failed to provide evidence of actual steps taken to resolve those hurdles. As the court observed:
There has still been no compliance by the Claimant who can make applications to the English Court in relation to permission to disclose documents but has not produced any evidence that he has done so.
Which judge presided over the application for an extension of time in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, which finalized the refusal of the Claimant's request for an extension, was issued on 2 March 2026, following the expiration of the deadlines set by the earlier Consent Order.
What arguments did Bhanu Choudhrie advance to justify the extension of time against the Defendants?
The Claimant, Bhanu Choudhrie, argued that he required additional time to comply with the court’s original directions due to external procedural complexities, specifically regarding the disclosure of documents that were subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. The Claimant sought to use these "practical difficulties" as a basis for varying or staying the original order, effectively asking the court to pause the enforcement of paragraph 5.
In contrast, the Defendants maintained their position by opposing the extension, pointing to the Claimant’s failure to meet the original 14-day deadline and the subsequent 7-day extension. The Defendants’ witness statement highlighted the lack of progress, which prompted the Claimant to file reply evidence. However, the court found this evidence to be insufficient, characterizing it as a collection of justifications rather than a demonstration of good faith efforts to comply with the court’s mandates.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke had to answer regarding the Claimant’s non-compliance?
The court was tasked with determining whether the Claimant had demonstrated sufficient cause to justify an extension of time to vary or stay an existing court order, or whether the Claimant’s failure to comply with the 30 January 2026 order—despite the benefit of a Consent Order—warranted the summary refusal of his application. The core issue was not merely the procedural delay, but whether the Claimant had shown a "real attempt" to comply with the court's previous directions, or if he was merely using the application process to forestall the inevitable consequences of non-compliance.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test of "real attempt to comply" in refusing the extension?
Justice Cooke’s reasoning focused on the distinction between providing reasons for failure and demonstrating active, genuine efforts to overcome obstacles. The court found that the Claimant’s submissions were repetitive and lacked substantive proof of engagement with the English courts for the necessary document disclosure. By failing to show that he had actually initiated the required applications in the English jurisdiction, the Claimant failed the threshold for the court to exercise its discretion in his favor.
The court emphasized that procedural deadlines are not suggestions, and the granting of a Consent Order is a significant concession that carries the expectation of immediate action. Because the Claimant failed to utilize this period effectively, the court concluded that the application was without merit. As stated in the Schedule of Reasons:
The Claimant’s apparently unsigned evidence in reply to the Defendants witness statement, filed in accordance with the Consent Order, repetitively provides a series of excuses without showing any real attempt to comply with the order, whatever practical difficulties may exist.
Which DIFC procedural rules and specific deadlines governed the court’s refusal of the extension?
The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the timeline established in the 30 January 2026 order and the subsequent Consent Order of 25 February 2026. The court noted that the initial 14-day window for compliance had lapsed, as had the additional 7-day extension requested by the Claimant. The court’s authority to manage these proceedings is derived from the RDC (Rules of the DIFC Courts), which empower the court to set and enforce strict timetables to ensure the efficient administration of justice.
How did the court use the expiry of the Consent Order to justify the finality of its decision?
The court utilized the expiration of the Consent Order as a definitive marker of the Claimant’s procedural exhaustion. By noting that the time for filing evidence had "only just expired," the court highlighted that the Claimant had been given every reasonable opportunity to rectify his position. The court’s reasoning was that once the extended deadline provided by the parties' own agreement (the Consent Order) had passed without compliance, the court was no longer obligated to provide further leniency.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the extension application and future compliance?
The court formally refused the Extension Application. Furthermore, it set a final "drop-dead" date for compliance, warning the Claimant of the consequences of further inaction. The court ordered that if the Claimant does not comply with paragraph 5 of the original order by 5 March 2026, the Defendants are entitled to apply for the matter to be listed for a hearing to determine outstanding issues. The court made no order as to costs, leaving the parties to bear their own expenses for this specific application.
If the Claimant fails to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order by no later than 5 March 2026, the Court shall, on any application by the Defendants, proceed to list the matter for a hearing to determine the outstanding issues.
What are the practical implications for litigants seeking extensions of time in the DIFC Courts?
This case serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Court of First Instance will not tolerate "excuse-based" litigation. Practitioners must ensure that any application for an extension of time is supported by concrete evidence of genuine attempts to comply with existing orders. Merely citing practical difficulties or external jurisdictional hurdles is insufficient if those hurdles have not been actively addressed through formal legal channels. Litigants should anticipate that once a Consent Order has been granted and subsequently breached, the court’s patience for further extensions will be extremely limited, and the risk of the matter being listed for a final determination of outstanding issues increases significantly.
Where can I read the full judgment in Bhanu Choudhrie v Dhariya Choudhrie [2026] DIFC CFI 098?
The full text of the Order with Reasons can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0982025-bhanu-choudhrie-v-1-dhariya-choudhrie-2-anita-choudhrie
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| None cited | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Order of H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke (30 January 2026)
- Consent Order (25 February 2026)