Skip to Content

CFI 014/2010 TAALEEM PJSC V DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT PJSC & NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION PJSC

CFI 014/2010 TAALEEM PJSC V DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT PJSC & NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION PJSC

August 17, 2014

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No. CFI 014/2010

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI

BETWEEN

 

TAALEEM PJSC

 

Appellant

and

(1)  DEYAAR DEVELOPMENT PJSC

First Respondent

(2)  NATIONAL BONDS CORPORATION PJSC

Second Respondent


ORDER OF H.E. JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI



UPON
reviewing the Appellant’s Application Notice CFI-014-2010/21 for reconsideration of refusal of permission to appeal at an oral hearing;

 

AND UPON hearing Counsel for all parties at a hearing on 29 June 2014;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

  1. Permission to appeal is denied.
  2. No order be made as to costs, as per Rules 44.28 and 44.29 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).

REASONS:

  1. This application was lodged by the Appellant (Deyaar) after they submitted an application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Justice Sir David Steel, which was refused by Justice Roger Giles in a detailed judgment without a hearing on 24 April 2014.
  2. Justice Roger Giles refused to grant the Appellant permission to appeal against Justice Sir David Steel’s judgment after considering the grounds of appeal without a hearing and concluded that the grounds of appeal, whether taken independently or collectively, did not offer any real prospects of success.
  3. Although the Appellant submitted grounds of appeal for Justice Roger Giles to consider in dealing with the first application for permission to appeal which was refused as stated above, the Appellant has not submitted any further reasons why permission should be granted notwithstanding the reasons given for the refusal of the first application for permission without a hearing.
  4. The Appellant’s failure to set out reasons after having their application rejected before Justice Roger Giles contravenes the requirement in RDC 44.19
  5. As such, I was not assisted by the Appellant as to why Justice Roger Giles was wrong in refusing to grant permission to appeal in the first place. All I was informed by the Appellant was that they were not pursuing Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 15 of the Grounds of Appeal before me in the hearing of 29 June 2014.
  6. On the other hand the Respondents, Taaleem and National Bonds, submitted lengthy Skeleton Arguments as to why Deyaar’s application for reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal should be dismissed.
  7. Despite the Appellant’s failure to provide reasons, notwithstanding the reasoned refusal of their first application, I allowed the Appellant to proceed with the hearing.
  8. I have considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, Justice Roger Giles’ reasoned Judgment of 24 April 2014, the Appellant’s oral submissions and the Respondents’ written and oral submissions, and I am not satisfied by the arguments presented before me that the Appellant’s grounds of appeal present a real prospect of success.

 

 

 

Issued by:

Natasha Bakirci

Assistant Registrar

Date of issue: 17 August 2014

Time: 3pm

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.