Claim No. CFI 013/2026

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURT

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN:

GREEN COMMUNITY HOLDINGS LIMITED

Claimant/Respondent

and

(1) MITCHELL WHITE

(2) GRACE ALEXANDRA WHITE

Defendants/Applicants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MARK PELLING

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 4 March 2026 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Request for Default Judgment against the First and Second Defendants dated 10 June 2026 pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)

AND UPON the Default Judgment of H.E. Justice Mark Pelling dated 16 July 2026 (the “Default Judgment”)

AND UPON the First and Second Applicants’ Application No. ENF-251-2026/1 dated 31 July 2026 under RDC Part 14 for an order setting aside the Default Judgment (the “Set Aside Application”)

AND UPON the Order of Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton dated 3 August 2026 transferring the Set Aside Application to this Claim

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Set Aside Application dated 5 August 2026

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Set Aside Application is dismissed.

2. The Applicants are to pay the costs or and occasioned by the Set Aside Application to be assessed immediately in accordance with the following directions:

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 2 September 2026
At: 11am

The Set Aside Application

1. Each of the Applicants applies for an order under Part 14 of the RDC setting aside the Default Judgment that has been entered against them. Each Application potentially engages different issues and therefore the facts and matters relied on need to be considered separately in relation to each Applicant.

2. The Default Judgment was entered on the evidence filed by the Respondent and Claimant in these proceedings (the “Respondent”) that (a) the proceedings had been served by the Respondent on the Applicants by three different methods on 18 and 19 May 2026 and that neither Applicant had filed or served an Acknowledgement of Service by 2 June 2026 being the time by which Acknowledgements of Service had to be filed applying RDC 11.5.

3. Although the Applicants assert in Paragraph 3 of their Application Notice that they:

this is contradicted by the evidence filed by the Respondent in support of the Set Aside Application, and the Applicants have filed no evidence contradicting or otherwise addressing that evidence. The reliance by the Applicants on the document exhibited to the Set Aside Application which is described as being an Acknowledgment of Service is not material for the reasons explained below. In those circumstances, I conclude that the Applicants have not discharged the burden of persuasion that rests on them to displace the Respondent’s evidence as to service.

4. By operation of RDC 14.1, there is a mandatory obligation to set aside a judgment entered in default of the filing of an Acknowledgement of Service only where any of the conditions set out in RDC 13.4 and 13.6 are satisfied. RDC 13.4 is not satisfied because an Acknowledgement of Service has not been filed by either Applicant and the relevant time for filing had passed on the date when the Request for Default Judgment was determined. None of the conditions set out in RDC 13.6 were satisfied either on the date of determination of the Request for Default Judgment or otherwise. It follows that if the Set Aside Application is to succeed, each Applicant must show that he or she has a real prospect of successfully defending the Claim or there is some other good reason for the Default Judgment to be set aside. I am unpersuaded that either Applicant has discharged the burden of establishing either ground. My reasons for reaching that conclusion are as follows.

5. The Set Aside Application fails because neither Applicant has complied with RDC 14.4, which requires that an application be supported by evidence. The documents referred to in Part C of the Set Aside Application are not of themselves evidence. What is required is a witness statement that sets out the basis on which it is asserted that the Applicant has a real (that is a more than fanciful) prospect of successfully defending the Claim and exhibiting such documents as may be relied on and explaining how they support the Applicant’s case on the application. It is usual practice on a set aside application to exhibit a draft Defence so that the Court can see in conventional form what defences are asserted. The Applicants have not adopted this course and instead merely asset that they “… should be permitted to properly present their defence, rely on the relevant evidence, and have the dispute determined on its merits”. That does not establish that the Applicants have a real prospect of successfully defending the Claim. It is not even an assertion that the Claim is capable of being successfully defended. The remainder of this Order proceeds on the basis that this conclusion is or may be wrong.

6. I refer to each of the documents referred to by the Applicants in their Application Notice.

Document 1 – the judgment of H.E. Justice Taha Amin Taha Aboulela in proceedings before the Dubai Courts of First Instance between Ms White (First Claimant) and Mr White (Second Claimant) and Green Community Holdings Limited (First Defendant) (the “DCCFI Judgment”).

7. The DCCFI Judgment holds that the DCCFI has no jurisdiction as against Mr White (the First Applicant in the Set Aside Application), because he was not a party to the agreement on which the DCCFI Judgment depends, and it does not show that either Applicant has a defence to these proceedings. Judgment has been entered by reference to an agreement between the parties which was the subject of an opt in jurisdiction agreement in favour of the DIFC Courts. There is no evidence offered as to why the facts and matters considered in the DCCFI Judgment would constitute a defence to the Claim against either defendant under that agreement applying its governing law. If and to the extent it was to be asserted that the agreement the Respondent sued upon had been rescinded some evidence to make good that suggestion was required and there is none.

8. The proceedings before the DCCFI appear to have been commenced on 7 May 2026, after the commencement of these proceedings. They do not appear to take any account of the opt in jurisdiction agreement in the agreement on which the Claimant relies (which would appear to govern whether that agreement had been rescinded by a subsequent agreement between one of the Applicants and the Respondent) and the DCCFI Judgment was entered on 8 July 2026 – before the Default Judgment and therefore without regard to it. None of these issues are addressed in the Set Aside Application and it is not suggested that the DCCFI Judgment gives rise to any form of issue estoppel.

Document 2 – The Acknowledgment of Service

9. That document does not assist the First Applicant because it names only the Second Applicant. It does not assist the Second Applicant either because it was not filed or served after service of the proceedings as required by the RDC but was served prior to service of the proceedings on the Applicants (which as I have explained above took place on 18 or 19 May 2026) as a response to the Respondent’s urgent application for possession that was determined on 11 May 2026. As is submitted by the Respondent, a document issued before a claim is served upon a defendant is not an acknowledgment of service of that claim. To be fair to the Applicants, they do not suggest otherwise.

Documents 3 and 4

10. Neither of these documents provide any assistance to either Applicant. Neither are an Acknowledgement of Service nor are they a Defence to the Claim. Neither contain evidence relevant to the issues that arise on this Set Aside Application.

Conclusions

11. The Set Aside Application fails because the Applicants have failed to comply with the procedural requirements for such an application and in any event have failed to demonstrate that either of them have a real prospect of successfully defending the Claim.

The Costs Application

12. I have given directions for determination of the assessment of costs because the Applicants have not had any opportunity to respond to the Respondent’s costs application.