DIFC Courts

CFI 036/2025 Stephan Karl Morgenstern v Saif Sultan Al Mehrzi Lawyers & Legal Consultancy

April 06, 2026 court of first instance - Orders

Claim No. CFI 036/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

STEPHAN KARL MORGENSTERN

Claimant

and

SAIF SULTAN AL MEHRZI LAWYERS & LEGAL CONSULTANCY

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form filed on 2 April 2025 and the Amended Claim Form filed on 23 April 2025 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 19 December 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-036-2025/2 dated 9 February 2026, seeking an order for production of documents pursuant to Part 28 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) (the “Claimant’s Application”) supported by the first witness statement of Muhammaed Mohsin Naseer dated 6 February 2026

AND UPON the Defendant’s evidence in answer to the Claimant’s Application dated 16 February 2026 supported by the witness statement of Saif Sultan Al Mehrzi of the same date

AND UPON the Claimant’s evidence in reply to the Claimant’s Application dated 23 February 2026 supported by the second witness statement of Muhammad Mohsin Naseer of the same date

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-036-2025/3 dated 23 February 2026, seeking production of documents pursuant to RDC Part 28 (the “Defendant’s Application”) accompanied by a Schedule of requests, objections and responses

AND UPON the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Defendant’s Application dated 9 March 2026, supported by the third witness statement of Muhammad Mohsin Naseer of the same date

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall disclose the documents identified in Appendix 1 to the Order within 7 days from the date of this Order.

2. The Defendant’s Application is dismissed.

3. The costs of the Claimant’s Application and the Defendant’s Application are to be the Claimant’s costs in the case.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 6 April 2026
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. There are the Claimant’s Application and the Defendant’s Application before the court (the “Applications”), for the production of documents pursuant to RDC Part 28.

The Claimant’s Application

2. The Claimant’s Application is first in time. Exhibited to Mr Naseer’s first witness statement was a Redfern schedule identifying the documents sought and the responses. For the most part the documents are directly referred to in the Defendant’s own pleading or are necessarily encompassed by the Defendant’s case.

3. Some of the documents sought are said to have been produced but this is denied by the Claimant. The documents should be produced so that there is no doubt as to the matter.

4. Other objections are made on the grounds of privilege. These objections are misconceived given that the Claimant was the client.

5. As set out in Appendix 1 to the Order, I consider that the documents requested should be produced.

The Defendant’s Application

6. The Defendant’s Application was issued more recently. It may be that it was a response to the Claimant’s Application. The documents sought are not properly the subject of document requests for the reasons identified in Appendix 2. For the most part to the extent that there are further documents the Defendant could be expected to have them.

Costs

7. I consider that the proper order for costs is that the costs of the Applications be Claimant’s costs in the case. This is because although the Applications are of a procedural nature, the Claimant has been wholly successful and the Defendant entirely unsuccessful.

APPENDIX 2

ITEM REQUESTED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT DATES (INCLUSIVE) DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANCE AND MATERIALITY CLAIMANT’S OBJECTIONS DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S OBJECTIONS COURT’S DECISION
1 Power of Attorney / authority chain: copies of all duly signed Power of Attorney / written authorisation / legal mandate authorising the Claimant’s legal representative(s) (including Horizons & Co / Ali Al Zarooni) to issue, sign, file and conduct these proceedings (including any compliance POA), together with any legalisation/authentication chain and certified English translation (where applicable). From 28 November 2024 to date. Standing/authority is in issue. These documents are necessary to determine the validity of representation and any reliance on authority asserted in the pleadings. The Claimant objects to this request on the basis that, as a matter of DIFC Court procedure, a Power of Attorney is not a prerequisite for the conduct of proceedings before this Court. Representation is effected through properly authorised legal representatives in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts. The Claimant’s legal representative’s “validity” has not been questioned by the Defendant to date and it is unclear how the Defendant believes the Claimant’s representation to be invalid.
In any event, it is unclear (and the Defendant has not explained) what bearing the documents requested have on the issues in this dispute, namely whether or not the Defendant complied with its contractual obligations to the Claimant.		 The Defendant does not contend that a Power of Attorney is procedurally mandatory for the conduct of DIFC Courts. The request goes to (i) whether the Claimant has properly authorised Horizons & Co / Ali Al Zarooni (and any other representatives) to issue instructions, plead and advance the claim and (ii) whether those persons had authority to take material steps and make communications relied upon (including any alleged variations, termination and payment demands). Authority/standing is relevant where the Claimant puts in issue what was instructed, agreed and communicated, and disclosure avoids satellite disputes. The Claimant should therefore disclose any authority/mandate documents in its possession, custody or control (or confirm none exist). Request refused. It does not go to any issue in the case.
2 Addendum (strict proof): the original signed Addendum dated 07 January 2025 relied upon by the Claimant (or any document relied upon as an addendum/variation), including drafts, negotiation correspondence, execution pages, and documents evidencing signature authority and valid execution. From 07 January 2025 to date. The existence/terms of the alleged Addendum are disputed and require strict proof. Production is necessary to determine whether a binding variation exists and what terms govern any alleged “3-day refund” obligation. The Claimant objects to this request as misconceived and unnecessary. The Addendum relied upon by the Claimant is already on the Court record and in the Defendant’s possession, having been disclosed as Exhibit C5 to the Amended Claim Form dated 23 April 2025. The Defendant’s request for further copies, drafts, negotiations, and execution materials is duplicative, disproportionate, and amounts to an impermissible fishing exercise. In any event, such documents, if in existence, should already be in the Defendant’s possession. There is no basis for re-disclosure of documents already properly pleaded and exhibited. It is unclear what bearing the requested documents have on the issues in dispute, namely whether the Defendant complied with its contractual obligations to the Claimant. While a copy of the Addendum is exhibited, the Defendant disputes its authenticity/valid execution and the authority of the signatory(ies). The request is not for re-disclosure of Exhibit C5 per se, but for (a) the original/native signed version and (b) any contemporaneous documents evidencing agreement and authority to execute (limited to formation/execution, excluding privileged legal advice). If no drafts/negotiation materials exist or are not within the Claimant’s possession, custody or control, the Claimant should confirm the same. Request refused. If the Claimant has produced the document it relies on, there is no need for another document. If the Defendant has it, it can produce it.
3 Evidence supporting the Claimant’s “timely cancellation” case: all documents the Claimant relies upon to assert that the relevant relief (including any alleged cancellation/suspension/closure of extradition / INTERPOL measures) was not achieved within (a) 10 working days under the Agreement and/or (b) 3 days under the alleged Addendum, including official confirmations, extracts, correspondence with authorities/counsel, and status updates in the Claimant’s possession/control. From 28 November 2024 to date. These documents go directly to breach/triggers events and whether any contractual refund mechanism was engaged. Production is necessary to test the Claimant’s pleaded case on non-performance within the agreed timeframe. The Claimant objects to this request to the extent that seeks documents beyond those already disclosed by way of standard disclosure. The Claimant has disclosed all material documents in its possession, custody, or control upon which it relies in support of its pleaded case, including: (1) the DIFC decision dated 25 June 2025; and (2) the Report dated 22 July 2025, both of which were disclosed on 2 January 2026. There are no further responsive documents in the Claimant’s possession or control at this stage. The Claimant is under no obligation to create or speculate beyond the contemporaneous documentary record already disclosed.
Given the nature of the documents being requested, they are of a type which would be expected to be in the possession, custody, and control of the Defendant, given that it was the firm appointed to achieve cancellation of the Extradition Request.		 The Claimant’s pleaded case turns on whether the relief was not achieved within the contractual time periods, and what the status was at the relevant dates. Disclosure cannot be confined to two later-dated documents if other contemporaneous updates/communications exist that the Claimant relies on, or which show the position during the key periods. Further, it is incorrect to suggest these documents are necessarily within the Defendant’s possession: any communications the Claimant had directly with third parties/authorities/counsel, and any internal status records, are within the Claimant’s own control. The Claimant should conduct a reasonable search and disclose any responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, or confirm none exist. Request refused. The Claimant says he has produced all documents that he has. There is no basis upon which this assertion is properly challenged. The documents sought, if they exist, would be expected to be in the possession of the Defendant.
4 Payment proof (beyond cheque images): documents evidencing the alleged payments made by the Claimant, including bank transfer confirmations, bank statements, payment instructions, receipts, cash withdrawal proof (if cash is alleged), and any supporting accounting reconciliation to (i) the USD 280,000 initial instalment and (ii) the AED 385,350 ‘Additional Amount’. From 28 November 2024 to date. Quantum and entitlement are in issue. Production is necessary to verify the fact, timing and amount of any payments, and whether the sums pleaded were paid and are properly recoverable. The Claimant objects to this request insofar as it is too broad and disproportionate. The Claimant relies on the payment evidence already pleaded and exhibited in the Claim Form and Amended Claim Form.
This is not an issue in dispute. The Defendant does not assert that the sums were never paid to it, so the documents are not material to any disputed issue.
Further, the Defendant has not pleaded this issue and/or demonstrated any reasonable basis to doubt the fact or quantum of payment so as to justify intrusive disclosure of banking records, internal accounting materials, or third- party financial documents. In the absence of a substantiated challenge, the request constitutes a speculative fishing expedition and should be refused.		 Payment and quantum are pleaded and remain live issues, including (i) timing and method of payment, (ii) whether the sums were paid to the Defendant or to third parties, and (iii) whether the pleaded amounts were in fact paid and are recoverable. The request is proportionate: the Defendant seeks primary payment proof (transfer confirmations/receipts/payment instructions and any receipt vouchers), not wholesale disclosure of entire bank statements beyond what is necessary, and accepts redaction of sensitive banking data. If the Claimant maintains the issue is not in dispute, it should confirm whether it will admit payment particulars (amount/date/method/recipient), absent that, the documents are material. Request refused. The Defendant does not put forward a positive case that the payments were not made. This could be expected if payment was in issue.
5 Termination / refund demand pack: the legal notice/demand letter dated 10 March 2025 referred to in the pleadings, proof of service/delivery, and all follow-up correspondence relating to termination and any refund demand (including any termination notice relied upon). From 10 March 2025 to date. These documents go to notice, termination, and the foundation for the Claimant’s demand. Production is necessary to establish what was demanded, on what basis, and whether valid notice/service occurred. The Claimant objects to this request on the ground that all material documents responsive to this category are already on the Court record. The legal notice/demand letter dated 10 March 2025, together with the relevant correspondence relied upon by the Claimant, has been disclosed as Exhibits C3 and C4 to the Claim Form. There are no further responsive documents in the Claimant’s possession, custody, or control.
Given the nature of the documents being requested, they are of a type which would be expected to be in the possession, custody, and control of the Defendant, given that it was the firm appointed to achieve cancellation of the Extradition Request.		 The termination letter and service are directly material to notice, termination and any trigger of refund rights. While the Claimant refers to Exhibits C3 and C4, the request also covers proof of service/delivery and follow-up correspondence (to the extent not already disclosed). The Claimant should either (i) identify where those documents are on the record and re-produce for convenience, or (ii) disclose any further responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, or confirm none exist. Request refused. There is no proper basis for asserting further documents exist. Furthermore if they did, they would be in the possession of the Defendant.
6 Core communications and email authenticity: complete communications (email/WhatsApp/letters/notes) relied upon by the Claimant concerning (i) instructions and progress, (ii) requests for PoA/authority documents and any refusal/delay narrative, (iii) performance/non-performance allegations, and (iv) where disputed email addresses (including Protonmail) are relied upon, the full email chains (preferably in native format where available), including headers/metadata where held, and any materials evidencing account ownership/control and authenticity. From 28 November 2024 to date. The contemporaneous record is central to the disputed factual matrix (including prevention/facilitation and authenticity of relied-upon communications). Production is necessary to assess what was requested/provided, what was communicated, and the reliability/authenticity of the communications relied upon. The Claimant objects to this request as excessively broad, oppressive, and disproportionate. This is not an issue in dispute. Further, the Defendant has not pleaded this issue. The Claimant has disclosed all communications upon which it relies in support of its pleaded case. The Defendant’s demand for “complete communications,” metadata, native files, and materials relating to email account ownership exceeds the proper scope of disclosure and is unsupported by any pleaded allegation of forgery or fabrication. Absent a properly pleaded challenge supported by prima facie evidence, the Defendant is not entitled to speculative disclosure aimed at testing authenticity. The request should therefore be rejected in its entirety. In any event, on the face of it the request appears to be a request for communications that would have been exchanged with the Defendant, and therefore in its own possession, custody and control. The request is targeted to communications the Claimant relies upon concerning instructions, the PoA narrative, and performance/nonperformance. Complete email chains are required to avoid selective production and to understand context and timing, the Defendant does not seek irrelevant all communications. As to native files/headers/ metadata: the Defendant seeks these only to the extent available and necessary to verify communications referred to in the request (including those sent from disputed/non-standard addresses), and accepts reasonable redactions and a privilege log where applicable. The Claimant should therefore disclose the full chains for reliedupon communications (and any related attachments), or confirm that no further responsive communications are within its possession, custody or control. Request refused. The documents relied on have been produced. No specific issue is identified to which these documents go or could go.