Skip to Content

CFI 013/2009 – Default Judgment

CFI 013/2009 – Default Judgment

June 25, 2009

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No: CFI 013/2009

THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE IN THE NAME OF HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH MOHAMMAD BIN RASHID AL MAKTOUM, RULER OF DUBAI

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Between

LESLIE WOOLASTON Claimant
vLIBERTAS CAPITAL LIMITED Defendant

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This Order is issued in replacement of the Order dated 21st June 2009 at 3:00pm.

In accordance with rule 13.7 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts and UPON the request of the Claimant dated 17 June 2009 for a default judgment (amount to be decided by the court) it is found as follows:

1. The Defendant has not filed with the DIFC Courts an admission or defence to the Claim.

 

2. The requested default judgment is granted.

 

3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the following amounts as set out in the Claim:

• Payment in lieu of the contractual notice period of three months being £24,999
• Payment in lieu of accrued and unused holiday entitlement being £3,557.31
• End of Service Gratuity entitlement under DIFC Employment Law being £5,208.03
• Unused air tickets for Claimant and immediate family being £5,000
Less an amount of £10,000 which it is agreed by the Claimant has already been paid. The total amount payable under this paragraph 3 is £28,764.34 or the US Dollar equivalent at the time of payment.

 

4. The Claimant is awarded costs in the sum of AED 84275.14.

 

5. The Claimant is awarded interest of £246.36 or the US Dollar equivalent at the time of payment.

 

6. The Defendant is to comply with this judgment within 14 days.

Amna Al Owais
Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 25 June 2009
At 04:00 pm

 

Reasons for Default Judgment

Claim No: CFI 013/2009

THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Between

LESLIE WOOLASTON Claimant
– V –LIBERTAS CAPITAL LIMITED Defendant

REASONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
DATED 21 JUNE 2009

1. On June 17, 2009 the Claimant requested the Court to issue a default judgment in an amount to be decided by the Court. The ground provided by the Claimant in the request was that the Defendant had not filed an acknowledgement of service to the original Claim. The original Claim had been filed with the Courts on June 1, 2009. In addition, on June 1, 2009 the Claimant had filed with the DIFC Courts a certificate of service, containing the statement of truth signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor, stating that the Claim form had been delivered to or left at a ‘permitted place’, being the Defendant’s principal office.

 

2. Although not mentioned in the request for default judgment, it is implicit in the Claimant’s ground for the default judgment that the requisite period for the filing of an acknowledgement of service by the Defendant (as set down in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (section 11.5) (“RDC”)) had expired.

 

3. The Claim is that the Claimant was made redundant by the Defendant on October 22, 2008. It is said in the Claim form that the termination was on notice and that the Defendant ‘acknowledged and promised to pay’ certain amounts. Those amounts have been awarded to the Claimant in the Default Judgment.

 

4. The Claim also sought compensation for an arrangement fee incurred in taking out a second mortgage, interest due on the second mortgage and compensation for loss suffered as a result of the diminution of the UK Pound Sterling.

 

5. Lastly, the Claimant sought interest on all sums claimed and costs.

 

6. In relation to these compensation claims, it is not clear, either from the Claim or the request for default judgment, the basis of such requests. It is not contended in either document that the contract was terminated in breach. Equally, the Claim form does not make it clear if the remedies sought are based on the ‘promise to pay’ or for breach of contract and, in either case, on what basis the compensation sought is due and payable.

 

7. In relation to interest, rule 13.15 of the RDC provides that the amount of interest is ‘to be decided by the Court’. However, in the absence of any request for interest at a particular amount or rate, or any evidenced contractual basis for applying interest, the original default judgment did not reference interest. Subsequently, the Claimant has advised the Court of its claim for interest, and that amount has been added to the reissued default judgment.

 

8. In relation to costs, rule 13.11 of the RDC provides that the Claimant is awarded costs. This is the right of the Claimant and does not need to be specified in the default judgment. However, the Claimant has advised the Court of the amount of costs sought and, as such, they form part of the reissued default judgment

 

Amna Al Owais
Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 25 June 2009
At 04:00 pm

 

X

Privacy Policy

The Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DRA's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DRA in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DRA and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DRA is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DRA and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DRA and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DRA and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DRA’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.