Skip to Content

CFI 014/2010 Deyaar Development PJSC v (1) Taaleem PJSC (First Respondent) (2) National Bonds Corporation PJSC (Second Respondent)

CFI 014/2010 Deyaar Development PJSC v (1) Taaleem PJSC (First Respondent) (2) National Bonds Corporation PJSC (Second Respondent)

October 16, 2014


Claim No. CFI 014/2010










First Respondent


Second Respondent


 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;


  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).


  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


Privacy Policy

The Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DIFC Courts'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 DIFC Courts in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DIFC Courts is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DIFC Courts 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. DIFC Courts’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.


The content of the DIFC Courts website is provided for information purposes only and should be disregarded when making decisions on inheritance and any other matters. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, the DIFC Courts makes no warranties or representations to you as to the accuracy, authenticity or completeness of the content on this website, which is subject to change at any time without notice. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by the DIFC Courts or any person employed or connected with it or formerly so employed or connected, to any person on any matter, be it in relation to inheritance, succession planning or otherwise. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer in relation to your personal circumstances and your objectives. The DIFC Courts does not assume any liability and shall not be liable to you for any damages, including but not limited to, direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website, its administration and any content or lack thereof found on it. The information on this web site is not to be displayed except in full screen format. Although care has been taken to provide links to suitable material from this site, no guarantee can be given about the suitability, completeness or accuracy of any of the material that this site may be linked to or other material on the internet. The DIFC Courts cannot accept any responsibility for the content of material that may be encountered therein.