Claim No. ARB 003/2013
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BANYAN TREE CORPORATE PTE LTD
MEYDAN GROUP LLC
KING AND WOOD MALLESONS (MENA) LLP
Third Party Appellant
ORDER OF JUSTICE SIR RICHARD FIELD
UPON the application by the Proposed Appellant (“KWM”) for permission dated 30 November 2016 to appeal the First and Second Replacement Orders referred to herein below
AND UPON considering the Order of the Court dated 10 August 2016 (the “Original Order”) whereby it was declared, inter alia, that KWM had ceased to act as the legal representative of the Defendant in ARB-003-2013 on 17 December 2014
AND UPON considering the Order of the Court dated 15 November 2016 (the “First Replacement Order”) which declared in paragraph 2 thereof that KWM ceased to act as the legal representative of the Defendant in ARB-003-2013 with effect from the date on which an alternative address for service was provided by the Defendant, that being 10 August 2016, pursuant to Rule 37.13 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
AND UPON considering the letter of the Registrar to the parties dated 20 November 2016 (the “Registrar’s Letter”)
AND UPON considering the Order of the Court issued pursuant to the Registrar’s Letter on 21 November 2016 (the “Second Replacement Order”) amending paragraph 2 of the First Replacement Order so as to read that KWM ceased to act as the legal representative of the Defendant in ARB-003-2013 proceedings with effect from the date of service of the Original Order on 17 August 2016 in accordance with RDC 37.3
AND UPON considering Part 37 of the RDC and RDC 36.41 to 36.46
AND UPON considering KWM’s Skeleton Argument dated 14 December 2016 in support of its said application for permission to appeal the First and Second Replacement Orders
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Proposed Appellant, King & Wood Mallesons (Mena) LLP, be granted permission to appeal the First and Second Replacement Orders issued on 15 November 2016 and 21 November 2016 respectively.
FOR THE REASON THAT, in my judgment, the alternative arguments of the Proposed Appellant that there was no power under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) to make the First and Second Replacement Orders or that they were made without the giving of reasons have a real prospect of success for the purposes of RDC 44.8(1).
Justice Sir Richard Field
Date of Issue: 24 January 2017
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.