Skip to Content

CFI 029/2018 The Industrial Group Ltd v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid

CFI 029/2018 The Industrial Group Ltd v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid

October 25, 2018


Claim No. CFI-029-2018










UPON reviewing Application No. CFI-029-2018/1 dated 12 August 2018 seeking to set aside the Default Judgment of Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser dated 30 July 2018 (the “Application”)

AND UPON reviewing Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Application dated 11 October 2018

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Defendant at a hearing on 15 October 2018


1. The Application is dismissed with a stay of execution on judgment pending trial of the Defendant’s cross-claims.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the Application on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.


Issued by:

Ayesha Bin Kalban

Assistant Registrar

Date of issue: 25 October 2018

Time: 12pm



1. This is an application by the Defendant, Mr Hamid, to set aside a judgment that was entered in default under Rule 13 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”).

2. The learned Judicial Officer entered judgment for the sum of AED 1,376,000. That is the sum that is claimed in respect of monies paid to the Defendant when there was, in respect of those payments, insufficient and/or improper justification advanced in order to procure payment.

3. The application to set aside is made under RDC Rule 14.2 and for the purposes of today, under that Rule, the Defendant has to show that he has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

4. Under Rule 14.4 an application under 14.2 must be supported by evidence. An expert’s report has been tendered in evidence, which is relied on, but the Defendant had not put before the Court a signed witness statement attesting to his honest belief that he had a defence to the claim, nor was there a witness statement setting out the basis of such an honest belief.  That was an unfortunate omission but it was cured by the Defendant going into the witness box and giving sworn evidence to the effect that he had an honest belief that he had a defence, and that the defence was based on the claims identified in his expert’s report.

5. The claims which are made in the expert’s report are properly characterised as a counter-claim. They do not, in my judgment, amount to a defence.  For there to be a defence by way of a cross-claim, the cross-claim must amount to what the law calls a set-off and there can only be a set-off where there is a very close relationship between A’s claim against B and B’s claim against A.  In my judgment, there is no such sufficient relationship between the claim made by the Claimant for payments, which have been received and improperly indented for and the claims which are identified in the expert’s report.

6. That means that there is no proper basis for setting aside this judgment which has been advanced to the Court. The Claimant, through Mr Russell, Queen’s Counsel, has approached this matter in a realistic and practical way.  They have suggested to the court that the right order to make is to stay execution on the judgment and allow the cross-claim, and any remaining claims not wrapped up in the judgment obtained by the Claimant, to proceed, and then for the court to decide what the final orders should be, depending, in effect, on the success of the defendant’s cross-claim.  That is the order that I am going to make here in this case.

7. Directions have already been made which consolidate the two claims and which provide a timetable for the service of pleadings and for a case management conference to be brought back on so that further directions can be made for the speedy disposition of these proceedings.

8. This application fails to the extent that the Court is not setting aside the judgment which was entered against the defendant, although the outcome for the Defendant does mean that he will not have to pay on the judgment pending the trial of the proceedings. But the application having failed, and indeed even if it had succeeded, the conventional order for costs in these cases is that the applicant must pay the costs of this hearing.  I so order that the Applicant, the Defendant, Mr Hamid, must pay the costs on the standard basis if they are not agreed.


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.


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.