Claim No: CFI 039-2016
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
PASSPORT SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND L.P
(1) ARY COMMUNICATIONS LTD
(2) MOHAMMAD SALMAN IQBAL
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE OMAR AL MUHAIRI
UPON reading the Claimant’s Application for Immediate Judgment dated 17 April 2018 seeking the recognition and enforcement of the judgment issued by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 6 July 2015 (Case No. HC/OS 306/2015) in favor of the Claimant, recognising and enforcing the ICC arbitral award issued in favor of the Claimant on 20 February 2012
AND UPON reading the Statements of Case and Witness Statements filed in these proceedings
AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant at a Hearing held on 5 June 2018
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.Pursuant to Rule 24.11 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts, the Claimant’s Application for Immediate Judgment is granted.
2. The judgment issued by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 6 July 2015 shall be recognised as binding within the DIFC and shall be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the DIFC Courts pursuant to Article 24 of the DIFC Court Law No. 10 of 2004.
3. The Defendants shall pay to the Claimant USD 12,952,919.05, being the total amount owing to the Claimant on the day of this Order under the judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.
4. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Claimant for the payment of the amounts owing to the Claimant under the judgment issued by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.
5. The Claimant be entitled to execute the Judgment Debt against the assets of the Defendants.
6. The Defendants shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the application and of these proceedings to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.
Ayesha Bin Kalban
Date of Issue: 6 June 2018
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1.This is an Application by the Claimant, Passport Special Opportunities Master Fund, L.P seeking an immediate judgment for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment issued by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 6 July 2015 (Case No. HC/OS 306/2015) in favor of the Claimant, recognising and enforcing the arbitral award issued in favor of the Claimant on 20 February 2012.2
2. The background is straightforward and is set out in a witness statement of Joanne Poile, who is a Chief Operating Officer of the Claimant. The monies are said to be due pursuant to an Investment Funding Agreement (the “IFA”). Under the terms of the IFA dated 15 June 2008, the Claimant was to provide funding to the First Defendant in an amount equal of USD 5,000,000. The Second Defendant executed an undertaking of sponsors in favour of the Claimant.
3. The First Defendant did not fulfill the conditions set out in the IFA Conditions and failed to refund the amount. As a result, the Claimant filed an Arbitration Claim on 10 September 2009 before the ICC, and the seat of the arbitration was Singapore.
4. On 20 February 2012 ICC issued a final award requiring the Defendants to pay the Claimant the claim amount set out in the arbitration proceedings.
5. On 6 July 2015, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore was issued, recognising and enforcing the arbitral award issued in favor of the Applicant on 20 February 2012.
6. The sum claimed in these proceedings is USD 12,952,919.05, which is the total amount owing to the Applicant on the day of this Order, under the judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.
7. The Defendants have filed no evidence whatsoever. They are not represented here today, having received due notice of this hearing.
8. As set out above, the Defendants have not seen fit to file any evidence and have not seen fit to attend. I am quite satisfied, as indeed Mr. Guillaume Hess puts in his skeleton argument, that the Claimant made its best efforts to allow the Defendants an opportunity to challenge the Award, defend the proceeding in Singapore and to defend this Claim.
9. I do not hesitate in granting judgment in relation to the claim that is being advanced. There is no need for me to solemnly go through the merits of the Claim, it is sufficient for me to say that the Defendants failure to provide any submissions or evidence on their behalf, therefore it is safe for the Court to proceed on the basis that the claim is a valid one.
10. Pursuant to RDC 24.1 and in accordance with the criteria for immediate judgement set out in GFH Capital v David Laurence Haigh  DIFC CFI 020 in a judgment of Justice Roger Giles, I give judgment to the Claimant in the sum of USD 12,952,919.05, being the total amount owing to the Claimant on the day of this Order under the judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.
11. In addition, the Claimant is entitled to its costs of these proceedings, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.
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.