What was the specific nature of the dispute between Alexander Reuter, Carlo Pianese, Andre Bledjian and Wellness United regarding the application for a retrospective extension of time?
The litigation concerns a long-standing dispute between the Claimants—Alexander Reuter, Carlo Pianese, and Andre Bledjian—and the Defendants, Wellness United, Jacob Logothetis, and Angela Turovskaya. Following a substantive judgment delivered on 27 October 2023, the Defendants sought to challenge the outcome by requesting a retrospective extension of time to file an appeal. This request followed a previous unsuccessful attempt to secure similar relief, which had been denied by the Court in an order dated 7 December 2023.
The current application, designated as CFI-107-2021/10, sought not only to set aside the December order but also to stay enforcement proceedings and obtain the necessary leave to appeal out of time. The Court’s refusal to grant these requests effectively solidified the finality of the October 2023 judgment. As Justice Lord Angus Glennie noted in the order:
By that Order, I refused the Defendants’ application for a retrospective extension of
time to allow them to file an appeal against my judgment dated 27 October 2023 (the
“Judgment”).
The parties involved in this procedural impasse are:
(2) Jacob Logothetis (AKA Iakovos Logothetis) (3) Angela Turovskaya
CFI 107/2021 (1) Alexander Reuter (2) Carlo Pianese (3) Andre Bledjian v (1) Wellness United INC.
Which judge presided over the application to set aside the order in CFI 107/2021 and in which division of the DIFC Courts was this heard?
The application was heard by Justice Lord Angus Glennie, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 7 February 2024, following the Defendants' attempt to challenge the previous procedural rulings made by the same judge in December 2023.
How did the Defendants, represented by Davidson & Co, argue for an extension of time, and what was the Claimants' position regarding the Defendants' lack of engagement?
The Defendants’ application was supported by a third witness statement from Mr. Keshav Raychaudhuri of Davidson & Co. The firm, which had been disengaged by the Defendants shortly before the trial on 25 September 2023, argued that the Defendants were unable to secure alternative legal representation or appear as litigants in person, which purportedly justified their absence and subsequent failure to comply with court directions. The Defendants sought to re-engage the firm to rectify these procedural defaults.
Conversely, the Court highlighted that the Defendants had established a pattern of non-compliance throughout the proceedings. The Claimants maintained that the Defendants had failed to lead evidence at trial and had neglected to file required witness statements or expert reports, despite clear court orders. Justice Lord Angus Glennie emphasized the history of the matter, stating:
In para. 2 of my Judgment, I set out part of the history of the matter to show that the
Defendants had failed to engage with the process almost from the beginning.
What was the precise legal question Justice Lord Angus Glennie had to answer regarding the Defendants' request for an extension of time to appeal?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the Defendants had provided a sufficient evidentiary or legal basis to justify a retrospective extension of time to file an appeal against the Judgment of 27 October 2023. Specifically, the Court had to decide if the explanation provided by the Defendants—namely the change in legal representation and the alleged inability to attend trial—constituted a valid excuse for the prolonged failure to engage with the litigation process and whether there were any substantive grounds for appeal that would warrant the Court’s indulgence.
What reasoning did Justice Lord Angus Glennie employ to test the validity of the Defendants' application for an extension of time?
Justice Lord Angus Glennie applied a rigorous standard of scrutiny to the witness statement provided by Mr. Raychaudhuri. The Court found that the statement failed to address the core issues of why the Defendants had disengaged from the process or why they could not have appeared in person at the trial. The judge noted that the application lacked any indication of the substantive arguments that would be raised if an appeal were permitted. The Court’s reasoning focused on the absence of a credible explanation for the Defendants' prior conduct, concluding:
He does not explain what efforts were
made to obtain alternative legal representation nor does it say why it was impossible
for the defendants to appear at trial in person.
The Court held that without a clear justification for the past failures and a demonstration of potential merit in the proposed appeal, there was no basis to grant the relief sought.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) and procedural standards were considered by the Court in CFI 107/2021?
The Court reviewed the application in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). While the order does not cite specific RDC rule numbers, it operates under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to manage its own process and the strict requirements for extensions of time. The Court’s decision was informed by the established principle that a party seeking an extension of time must provide a cogent explanation for the delay and demonstrate that the underlying appeal has a reasonable prospect of success.
How did the Court distinguish the Defendants' current application from previous procedural history in the case?
The Court relied on its own previous findings from the Judgment of 27 October 2023 and the Order of 7 December 2023. Justice Lord Angus Glennie treated the current application as a continuation of the Defendants' established pattern of non-engagement. By referencing the history of the case, the Court demonstrated that the Defendants had been given ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings but had consistently failed to do so. The judge noted that the current application failed to address the points raised in the earlier judgments, effectively rendering the request for an extension of time unsupported by any new or compelling evidence.
What was the final outcome of the application in CFI 107/2021, and what orders were made regarding costs?
The Court definitively refused the Defendants' application. The order issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo on 7 February 2024 confirmed that the application to set aside the previous order and for an extension of time to appeal was rejected. Consequently, the substantive Judgment of 27 October 2023 remains in full force and effect. The Court made no order as to costs in relation to this specific application.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for litigants in the DIFC Courts who fail to engage with the trial process?
This ruling serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Courts will not tolerate persistent non-engagement or attempts to reopen proceedings through late-stage appeals without a robust justification. Practitioners must anticipate that the Court will prioritize the finality of judgments over the procedural convenience of parties who have failed to comply with directions. The decision reinforces that "disengagement" by legal counsel is not a sufficient excuse for a party’s failure to appear or to meet court-mandated deadlines. Litigants must ensure that all evidence and arguments are presented during the trial phase, as the threshold for obtaining an extension of time to appeal after a period of non-participation is exceptionally high.
Where can I read the full judgment in Alexander Reuter v Wellness United [2024] DIFC CFI 107?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1072021-1-alexander-reuter-2-carlo-pianese-3-andre-bledjian-v-1-wellness-united-inc-2-jacob-logothetis-aka-iakovos-logotheti
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-107-2021_20240207.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)