Claim No: CFI 016/2025

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

OMAR BEN HALLAM

Claimant

and

NATIXIS

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI

UPON the Claim being filed on 24 February 2025 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Judgment of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 19 September 2025 (the “Judgment”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 3 February 2026

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-016-2025/4 dated 19 February 2026, seeking anonymisation of the Judgment in respect of the Claimant (the “Application”)

AND UPON review of the Defendant’s email correspondence dated 2 March 2026, serving as evidence in answer

AND UPON review of the Claimant’s email correspondence dated 10 March 2026, serving as evidence in reply

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is rejected.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 25 March 2026
At: 12pm

1. This Application is brought by the Claimant seeking permission to anonymise the Claimant’s name in these proceedings, in respect of the published Judgment dated 19 September 2025. The Application does not seek to revisit or vary the Court’s reasoning, disturb the outcome of the proceedings, or affect the costs orders dated 19 September 2025 or 3 February 2026. The relief sought concerns publication format only, and the forward-looking presentation of the Court’s public record. The Application is made pursuant to Practice Direction No. 3 of 2016.

2. By way of summary, the Claimant’s position is that, as he is a private individual who initiated proceedings concerning a private employment dispute, he has genuine interest in ongoing dissemination and search-index linkage of his personal name in connection with these proceedings, which are easily found. Further, the Defendant had no objection to anonymisation in its submissions dated 6 November 2025.

3. By way of its reply by email dated 2 March 2026, the Defendant opposes the Application on the basis that the issue of anonymisation has already been rejected in the Order with Reasons of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 3 February 2026, which stated that: “given the lack of statutory obligation to do so, I also concur that there is little value in anonymising proceedings at this stage.” Further, the Defendant submits that anonymisation of the Judgment would have little impact as a number of articles published by third parties have already been released, which would not be changed in the event that neutral names are used in place of the Claimant in the original Judgment. Finally, the Claimant ought to have been aware from the outset that Court of First Instance disputes are not anonymous as he was legally represented.

4. In my view, there is little reason to grant anonymisation at this stage.

5. First, Practice Direction No. 3 of 2016 only gives guidance after anonymisation is granted. It does not act as a threshold or test to grant anonymisation initially. Therefore, it is maintained that there is no statutory obligation in favour of anonymisation in this Claim.

6. I also maintain that there is little value in anonymisation. As demonstrated by the Defendant, articles have already been published on the matter regarding the impact on Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 and various online posts keeping tabs on Court of First Instance legal updates.

7. As there has not been any change in circumstances since the last anonymisation request, nor has any further evidence come to light that could not have been previously accessible, there is no reason to grant this Application.

8. As the Claimant seeks no costs for this Application, no costs shall be granted.