CFI 020/2014 GFH Capital Limited v David Lawrence Haigh
Claim No. CFI 020/2014
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
GFH CAPITAL LIMITED
DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE
UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 9 March 2017 seeking permission to appeal against the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 28 February 2017 (incorrectly referenced as (i) the Order of Chief Justice Michael Hwang; and (ii) dated 28 March 2017 in the appeal notice) and the supporting documents
AND UPON reviewing Part 44 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
AND UPON reviewing the documents recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Permission to appeal the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 28 February 2017 is refused.
2. Permission to re-open the appeals heard on 18 September 2016 is refused.
Maha Al Mehairi
Date of Issue: 14 March 2017
1.There is no basis under the law of the DIFC for any appeal from the decision of 28 February 2017 by the full Court of Appeal arising from the hearing before that Court on 18 September 2016.
2. Under RDC 44.179:
“44.179 The Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance will not re-open a final determination of any appeal unless:
(1) It is necessary to do so in order to avoid real injustice;
(2) The circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the appeal and;
(3) There is no alternative effective remedy.”
3. The criteria set out in RDC 44.179 are not met in the present case. The Court took full account of:
(a) the past history of the proceedings;
(b) the evidence adduced of the Defendant’s mental and physical condition;
(c) the fact that the Defendant had filed three applications dated 11 September 2016;
(d) the contents of those applications including the application for an adjournment on the grounds of his imminent hospitalisation;
(e) the assistance given to the Defendant by Keystone Law and the Defendant’s use of them in “gaming the system”;
(f) the need to balance the need to give the Defendant a fair opportunity to be heard and the need for a resolution of the matter within a reasonable time, given the delay in the Defendant making submissions since the start of 2016;
(g) the opportunity given to the Defendant to respond in writing to the oral submissions of the Claimant within 2 weeks of receipt of the documents delivered to him and Keystone Law, as per the letter of the Registrar dated 20 September 2016; and
(h) the merits of the arguments raised by the Defendant.
4. At paragraph 71 of the Reasons for the Order dated 28 February 2017, the Court of Appeal set out the need to show that the integrity of the earlier litigation process had been undermined and that real injustice had taken place. Nothing that the Defendant has put forward in his appeal notice suggests that this has occurred. The Court took full account of the submissions made to it by the Defendant and the opportunities available to him in making the orders it did.
5. There is nothing in the Defendant’s latest or earlier submissions to suggest that there were any submissions he could have made on the substance of the orders that were made nor evidence that he could have adduced that would have made any difference to the conclusions reached by the Court.
6. In the circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the ultimate conclusions reached on his appeals were unjust and there exist no exceptional circumstances that mean that he should be permitted to re-open the appeal.