May 05, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 009/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
AMITESH GAHLOWT AMAR NATH SINGH
Claimant
and
COINVESTING CAPITAL LIMITED
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SAPNA JHANGIANI
UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani dated 30 October 2025 (the “Judgment”), issued following the trial of this matter from 23 to 25 June 2025 (the “Trial”)
AND UPON the Order of H. E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani dated 27 January 2026 setting out the Remaining Issues and ordering the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of USD 190,586.00 within 14 days (the “January Judgment”)
AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 27 February 2026 seeking permission to appeal the January Judgment (the “Appeal Notice” or “Application for Permission to Appeal”)
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani dated 11 March 2026 determining the Remaining Issues (the “Remaining Issues Judgment”)
AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s submissions dated 26 March 2026 in response to the Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal (the “Claimant’s Appeal Response”)
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal is refused.
2. The Claimant is entitled to its costs of the Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal. Such costs are to be submitted to detailed assessment along with the costs of this case, unless agreed.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 5 May 2026
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Introduction
1. This Order is to be read in conjunction with the Judgment, the January Judgment and the Remaining Issues Judgment which set out the background to this case.
The Application
2. The Defendant’s Appeal Notice provides as follows (with paragraph numbers added for ease of reference):
“(1) The Defendant applies for permission to appeal the Order of H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani dated 27 January 2026.
(2) The proposed appeal has a real prospect of success and/or there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard for the following reasons:
i. The Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the DIFC Employment Law in determining that the Claimant was entitled to resign for cause and recover salary for the period 11 June 2022 to 11 August 2023.
ii. The Court misapplied the legal threshold required to establish constructive termination / resignation for cause. The Defendant further submits that the findings relating to consequential entitlement require reconsideration by the Court of Appeal.
Separately, the Defendant intends to apply for a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal.”
3. No skeleton argument has been filed by the Defendant in support of the Application for Permission to Appeal.
4. The relief sought by the Defendant in the Application for Permission to Appeal is as follows:
(a) “The Order dated 27 January 2026 be set aside or varied;
(b) The Claimant’s claim for salary from 11 June 2022 to 11 August 2023 be dismissed; and
(c) Such further or other relief as the Court of Appeal considers appropriate.”
5. Although the Application for Permission to Appeal refers to appealing the January Judgment, the body of the Application states (at paragraph 2) ii. set out at [2] above) that the Court erred in “determining that the Claimant was entitled to resign for cause and recover salary for the period 11 June 2022 to 11 August 2023”. That determination by the Court was made in the Judgment dated 30 October 2025, and not in the January Judgment.
6. In an email of 16 March 2026 to the DIFC Courts Registry, with copy to the Claimant’s legal representatives, the Defendant stated “[f]or the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant confirms that the appeal filed on 27 February 2026 extends to the consequential orders made in this matter, including the Order dated 11 March 2026”. The Application for Permission to Appeal therefore purports to encompass the Remaining Issues Judgment and other consequential orders.
Claimant’s Appeal Response
7. The Claimant’s submissions in response to the Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal are as follows:
(a) The Application for Permission to Appeal is not validly constituted. The Defendant has failed to comply with RDC 44.29 which provides that an application for permission to appeal must (1) set out the grounds of appeal relied on; and (2) include or be accompanied by a skeleton argument. The Claimant contends that the Defendant’s Application comprises pure assertions, unsupported by argument, and points out that no skeleton argument has been filed.
(b) The Application for Permission to Appeal is out of time. Under RDC 44.10, an appeal notice “must” be filed within 21 days of the date of the decision. The Claimant submits as follows:
i. The Appeal notice was not filed within 21 days of the January Judgment. Despite the Claimant’s solicitors warning the Defendant by email on 11 February 2026 that the assumption of a 30-day time limit to appeal the January Judgment was incorrect, the Defendant filed the Application for Permission to Appeal 30 days after the January Judgment.
ii. The Appeal Notice was not filed within 21 days of the Judgment. The Claimant points out that a number of events intervened between the Appeal Notice and the Judgment of 30 October 2025, including a case management conference on 21 January 2026 to manage the disposal of the Remaining Issues.
iii. The Defendant has not applied for an extension of time or even provided grounds to establish why either time or the scope of its appeal should be extended. The Claimant submits that “the casual approach of the email of 16.03.26 speaks for itself”.
(c) The Test for an Appeal is not met. The Claimant submits as follows:
i. RDC 44.19 provides that permission to appeal may only be granted where the Court considers that “1) the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or 2) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard”.
ii. The Claimant submits that, whilst the Appeal Notice provides that “the Court misapplied the legal threshold required to establish the constructive termination/resignation for cause”, no grounds for that suggestion are advanced. In any event, the suggestion is hopeless given (i) the finding of fact in the Judgment that the Claimant was not paid wages for a very protracted period; and (ii) the arguments advanced (or not advanced) by the Defendant at Trial - for example, it was not suggested by the Defendant that the Claimant was not entitled to terminate his employment for cause pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Employment Law if the Claimant had been an employee and had not been paid his wages.
iii. In relation to the complaint about findings relating to “consequential entitlement”, the Claimant submits that no attempt has been made by the Defendant to identify which determination is impugned or on what basis. The Defendant was provided “ample opportunity” to set out their case on what sums should be paid to the Claimant as a consequence of the findings in the Judgment, but chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity.
iv. RDC 44.31 provides that the grounds of appeal “must: 1) set out clearly the reasons why it is said that the decision of the lower Court was wrong…” and “specify, in respect of each ground, whether the ground raises an appeal on a point of law or is an appeal against a finding of fact”. The Claimant submits that this is an important formal requirement which the Defendant have failed to meet by not providing a clearly articulated basis for overturning the findings in the Judgment.
Court’s Decision
8. Having considered the Appeal Notice, the RDC and the Claimant’s Appeal Response, the Court finds that the Defendant’s Application for Permission to Appeal fails on the following grounds:
(a) The Application for Permission to Appeal the January Judgment was filed out of time, with no explanation for the Defendant’s failure to comply with the 21-day deadline to file an appeal, and no application being made for an extension to the deadline.
(b) Whilst the Appeal Notice does not formally seek to appeal the Judgment of 30 October 2025, the Defendant purports to appeal that Judgment by referring in the Appeal Notice to the Court’s determination in the Judgment that the Claimant was entitled to resign for cause and recover his salary from 11 June 2022 to 11 August 2023. The Judgment would need to be identified in the Appeal Notice as the order to be appealed for an application for permission to appeal to be granted. However, in any event, such an application would fail for being out of time. No explanation was provided by the Defendant for the failure to file the Appeal Notice within the requisite deadline, nor was an extension of time sought.
(c) Through its 16 March 2026 email to the DIFC Courts’ Registry, which is referred to at paragraph 6 above, the Defendant also seek to appeal the Remaining Issues Judgment of 11 March 2026 through their Application for Permission to Appeal, as well as other “consequential orders”. This is untenable. An appeal notice must set out with specificity the order which is sought to be appealed. Further and in any event, the Remaining Issues Judgment was issued after the Appeal Notice.
(d) The Application for Permission to Appeal must fail for non-compliance with:
i. RDC 44.29 which provides that an application for permission to appeal must (1) set out the grounds of appeal relied on; and (2) include or be accompanied by a skeleton argument; and
ii. RDC 44.31 which provides that the grounds of appeal “must: 1) set out clearly the reasons why it is said that the decision of the lower Court was wrong…” and “specify, in respect of each ground, whether the ground raises an appeal on a point of law or is an appeal against a finding of fact”.
The Court considering an application for permission to appeal needs to know the specific grounds and reasons forming the basis of the appeal in order to determine whether or not the criteria for permission to appeal in RDC 44.19 are made out. Likewise, an appellate court will need to know the grounds of appeal (and accompanying reasons) in order to determine whether or not the appeal is allowed. These are not simply formal requirements. Whilst the Defendant’s Appeal Notice sets out bare assertions that the Court erred, no supporting reasons are provided to substantiate the errors alleged.
9. In all the circumstances, the Application for Permission to Appeal fails for non- compliance with formal requirements, and for failure to establish the criteria for permission to appeal set out in RDC 44.19.
