Skip to Content

CA 005/2013 and CA 006/2013 (1) Kenneth David Rohan (2) Andrew James Mostyn Pugh (3) Michelle Gemma Mostyn Pugh (4) Stuart James Cox v Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited & Ahmed Zaki Beydoun v (1) Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited (2) Asteco Property Management LLC

CA 005/2013 and CA 006/2013 (1) Kenneth David Rohan (2) Andrew James Mostyn Pugh (3) Michelle Gemma Mostyn Pugh (4) Stuart James Cox v Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited & Ahmed Zaki Beydoun v (1) Daman Real Estate Capital Partners Limited (2) Asteco Property Management LLC

December 17, 2014

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No: CA-005-2013 and CA-006-2013

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

 

BETWEEN

(1)  KENNETH DAVID ROHAN

(2)  ANDREW JAMES MOSTYN PUGH

(3)  MICHELLE GEMMA MOSTYN PUGH

(4)  STUART JAMES COX

                                                                                    Claimants/Respondents in CA-005-2013

and

DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED

                                                                                                Defendant/Appellant

AND BETWEEN

AHMED ZAKI BEYDOUN

Claimant/Respondent in CA-006-2013

and

(1)  DAMAN REAL ESTATE CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED

First Defendant/Appellant

(2)  ASTECO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

Second Defendant


ORDER OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE SIR JOHN CHADWICK


UPON READING the Order made herein on 11 February 2014 dismissing these appeals

AND UPON READING the Orders of Justice Roger Giles made on 26 March 2014 and 24 April 2014 granting permission to re-open these appeals

AND UPON READING the Order made herein on 16 October 2014 on the further hearing of these appeals

AND UPON READING the representations made pursuant to that Order on 30 October 2014 on behalf of the Appellant and the representations made on 10 November 2014 and 12 November 2014 by the Respondentsin responsethereto                                       

AND FOR THE REASONS set out in the Schedule hereto

THIS COURT does not think fit to makeany further Order (varying or in substitution for the order made under paragraph 3 of the said Order of 16 October 2014) in respect of the costs of these appeals (which, for the avoidance of doubt, are to include the costs of the applications to re-open the appeals).

 

Issued by:

                                                                                                Mark Beer

Registrar

Date of Issue:  17 December 2014

At: 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.