Claim No: CFI 008/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

TAKUYA HONDA

Claimant

and

(1) SHINGO OKAMOTO
(2) MUHAMMAD WASIQ RASHID

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE

UPON this claim being filed on 4 February 2025 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Default Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 12 March 2025 (the “Default Judgment”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application CFI-008-2025/1 dated 18 March 2025 seeking default judgment against the Defendants (“Application 2025/1”)

AND UPON the Defendants’ Applications CFI-008-2025/2 dated 26 March 2025 and CFI-008- 2025/4 seeking to set aside the Default Judgment (“Application 2025/2” and “Application 2025/4”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application CFI-008-2025/3 dated 10 April 2025 seeking an assessment of damages (“Application 2025/3”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The First Defendant’s Applications 2025/2 and 2025/4 are granted.

2. The First Defendant shall serve a Defence within 14 days of the date of this Order.

3. The Second Defendant’s Applications 2025/2 and 2025/4 are granted but only on the condition that the Second Defendant, within 28 days of the date of this Order, pay into Court the judgment sums of USD 1,092,425.51 and USD 57,106.28 to abide the result of the Claimant’s claim. In the event of failure to pay the said sums into Court, the Claimant shall be entitled to execute the Default Judgment. In the event of such payment into Court, the Second Defendant shall serve a Defence within 14 days thereafter.

4. The costs of the Applications are to be paid by the Defendants in any event, such costs to be the subject of assessment if not agreed.

5. Application 2025/1 is dismissed as ineffective, with no order as to costs.

6. Application 2025/3 is adjourned pending such payment into Court and service of a Defence thereafter.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 27 May 2025
At: 8am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The First Defendant has realistic prospects of success in arguing that there was no financial relationship between him and the Claimant, and the allegations of negligence and/or fraud raise issues of fact which require full investigation. It is inappropriate to say more about the allegations in these circumstances

2. The Second Defendant alleges that there are other sums owed under the 7 August 2022 Investment Agreement and the 23 November 2023 Restated Agreement and that a full account must be made of all dealings under it, but appears to allege that a set-off against the sums claimed exists, not because the Claimant failed to pay the full purchase price for the real property investments, but because the value of the properties purchased was greater than the price paid. That would not appear to give rise to any arguable set off under the terms of the contracts in issue.

3. The evidence of the Claimant is that full payment was made and reliance is place on the provisions of the contracts requiring full repayment of sums invested, in the event of termination, to which the Second Defendant has no apparent answer.

4. It is again inappropriate to say more about the allegations in these circumstances.

5. There is no good reason advanced for the failure of the Defendants to respond to the service of the Claim upon them and there are apparent admissions of liability by the Second Defendant.

6. The Defence of the Second Defendant is thus so weak as to require payment into Court of the sums claimed as a condition of allowing him to set aside the default judgement and defend the claim.

7. The failure by both Defendants to respond to the Claim and acknowledge service has necessitated the Claimant’s application and the Defendants shall bear the costs thereof to be the subject of assessment by the Registrar if not agreed.