Skip to Content

CFI 020/2014 GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh

CFI 020/2014 GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh

November 10, 2016

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No: CFI-020-2014

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

 

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BEFORE JUSTICE ROGER GILES

BETWEEN

GFH CAPITAL LIMITED

Claimant

and

DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH

Defendant


 ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE ROGER GILES


UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant at the hearing of Application Notice CFI-020-2014/3 dated 17 March 2015 for immediate judgment on 17 October 2016

AND UPON rendering judgment orally on 18 October 2016 and directing the Claimant to bring in draft orders

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s draft order dated 18 October 2016 and the submissions on indemnity costs dated 23 October 2016

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.The Application for immediate judgment be allowed.

2. Judgment be entered for the Claimant in the amounts of AED 8,735,340, USD 50,000 and GBP 2,039,793.70, plus simple interest from 28 May 2014, accruing at the rate of EIBOR (three month rate) + 1 per cent.

3. Save where the subject of previous costs orders, which remain in force, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

Issued by:

Mark Beer

Registrar

Date of issue: 10 November 2016

At: 1pm

 

REASONS:

1.At the conclusion of my reasons delivered orally on 18 October 2016, I directed that the Claimant bring in draft orders. The Claimant had asked for indemnity costs, and I also sought submissions in support of that request.

2. The Court has a discretion as to costs (RDC 38.6). Practice Direction No 5 of 2014 records factors taken into consideration in determining, in the exercise of the discretion, whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis rather than the standard basis.  They are –

“(i) circumstances where the facts of the case and/or the conduct of the paying party are/is such as to take the situation away from the norm; for example where the Court has found deliberate misconduct in breach of a direction of the Court or unreasonable conduct to a high degree in connection with the litigation; or

(ii) otherwise inappropriate conduct in its wider sense in relation to a paying party’s pre-litigation dealings with the receiving party, or in relation to the commencement or conduct of the litigation itself; or

(iii) where the Court considers the paying party’s conduct to be an abuse of process.”

3. These factors reflect the established approach under English law, see for example the summary by Gloster J in Euroption Strategic Fund Ltd v Skandinavska Enskilda Banken AB [2012] EWHC 749 (Comm) at [11] – [14]. In particular, where a claim is successfully brought on the basis of the defendant’s fraud, the fraudulent conduct need not of itself warrant indemnity costs but is something which may be taken into account.

4. I consider that indemnity costs should be ordered in the present case.

5. On my conclusions in the application for immediate judgment, the Defendant acted dishonestly in misappropriating money from the Claimant. But more than that, he sought to defend the claim against him with explanations which I considered to be lacking in credibility and a concoction.  In the course of the proceedings the Defendant brought applications and appeals with marked paucity of success and diversionary and collateral proceedings, while not engaging with the application for immediate judgement made in March 2015.  In my opinion, his dishonest conduct and his conduct in relation to the claim brought against him was inappropriate and unreasonable, to the level of taking the case out of the norm and warranting an order for costs on the indemnity basis.

6. I therefore make the following orders:

(1) The money judgment will carry interest at the post-judgment rate provided by DIFC Courts Practice Direction No. 1 of 2009 from the date of commencement of the proceedings.

(2) The application for immediate judgment be allowed.

(3) That the sums of AED 8,735,340, USD 50,000 and GBP 2,039,793.70 when received by the Defendant were held by him on trust for the Claimant.

(4) Judgment for the Claimant in the amounts of AED 8,735,340, USD 50,000 and GBP 2,039,793.70, plus simple interest from 28 May 2014, accruing at the rate 1 percent over the Emirates Inter bank Offered Rate (EIBOR) per annum.

(5) Save where the subject of previous costs orders, which remain in force, the Defendant shall to pay the Claimant’s costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis, to be assessed if not agreed.

X

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.
X

Disclaimer

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.