July 21, 2026 Court of First Instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 041/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
ANASTASIIA DENISOVA
Claimant
and
(1) ALEKSEI GALTCEV
(2) REALISTE HOLDING LTD
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SAPNA JHANGIANI
UPON the judgment of H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani dated 15 May 2026 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-041-2024/19 dated 29 June 2025 to adduce additional witness evidence (the “Application”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s response to the Application dated 2 July 2026
AND UPON the Defendant’s response dated 10 July 2026 to the Claimant’s response
AND UPON reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants’ Application is refused.
2. Costs shall be costs in the case.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 21 July 2026
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Background
1. It is not disputed that the key issue at the forthcoming trial of this matter commencing 27 July 2026 is the value of the Claimed Shares (as defined in the Judgment).
2. Witness statements in this case were filed at the end of April 2026.
3. In their Application, the Defendants apply to adduce the witness statement of Ms Lauren LaPointe, CEO of Stalliongates Capital (“Stalliongates”), dated 23 April 2026 (the “LaPointe Statement”). The Defendants submit that Ms LaPointe’s statement responds to the suggestion by the Claimant that Stalliongates Capital had valued the Claimed Shares at USD 120 million (the “Stalliongates Valuation”). The Defendants submit that these references can be found in:
(a) The chronology produced by the Claimant in her disclosure, and served with her Document Production Statement dated 7 May 2026. In the chronology, the Claimant identifies “Shaffat Hashmi, CEO at Stalliongate, and correspondence from Aleksei Galtsev” as evidence for the valuation of the Second Respondent. In the entry above this entry, the Claimant states that the “Holding Company” is valued between USD 100 million and USD 117 million. The Defendants submit that the Claimant has not produced any evidence to support the alleged Stalliongates Valuation.
(b) A WhatsApp message to Mr Nikola Košutić, which is quoted in his witness statement dated 24 April 2026, in which the Claimant states, “the current valuation of USD120 million has been validated with the Abu Dhabi-based fund StallionGate, backed by Silicon Valley investors (internal information)”.
4. The Defendants submit that the LaPointe Statement proves that the suggestion that Stalliongates produced a valuation is “categorically false”.
5. The basis of the Defendants’ Application to file the LaPointe Statement out of time is that they were seeking to obtain the LaPointe Statement from April onwards, but because Ms LaPointe is based in the United States, the Defendants had no means, leverage or control either to compel a statement from her, or to expedite its provision. The Defendants submit that they only received the signed statement on 24 June 2026.
6. The Defendants submit that the LaPointe Statement causes no prejudice because:
(a) The Claimant herself put the Stalliongates Valuation in issue.
(b) The Claimant produced no document on this issue. The Claimant was specifically ordered in document production to produce all documents relating to any alleged valuation of the Company at USD 120 million by any investment fund, including Stalliongates, but did not produce any responsive document, and confirmed in her statement of truth that all the documents she produced were the only known documents relating to the categories of document production.
(c) The Claimant will have a full and fair opportunity to meet the evidence.
7. The Defendants submit that admitting the LaPointe Statement enables the Court to determine the value of the Claimed Shares on the fullest and most directly relevant evidence, and is consistent with the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly.
8. The Claimant opposes the Application on the basis that:
(a) It is made significantly late in the proceedings: the evidence exchange phase has already concluded, and the parties have prepared their cases on the basis of the pleaded and disclosed material. The timing of the Application risks disruption to trial preparation.
(b) No adequate explanation for the delay has been provided: the Application fails to provide any details or evidence as to why the witness was not approached at an earlier stage of the proceedings, or what happened between April and June 2026. The mere fact that a witness is overseas does not, without more, justify late admission of evidence in well-advanced proceedings. The valuation of the Claimed Shares has been in dispute from an early stage of the proceedings, and the Application therefore reflects late litigation strategy rather than genuinely late-discovered evidence.
(c) Admission of the evidence would cause unfair prejudice and procedural disruption to the Claimant: the Claimant has prepared her case on the basis of the Defendants’ served evidence and the introduction of new factual evidence shortly before trial would require reassessment of evidence and strategy, risking the necessityCommentHighlight of further evidence and potentially additional procedural steps, and threatening disruption to the trial timetable.
9. The Claimant submits that, whilst the Court’s discretion to admit late evidence is well- established, it must be exercised in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness, case management discipline, and the overriding objective. The burden lies on the Defendants to justify departure from the normal procedural timetable, and relevant considerations include:
(a) The reason for the delay;
(b) Whether the evidence could with reasonable diligence have been obtained earlier;
(c) The importance and probative value of the evidence;
(d) The prejudice to the opposing party; and
(e) The impact on the efficient conduct of the proceedings and trial timetable.
10. The Claimant emphasises that relevance alone is not sufficient, and the decisive factors are the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay and the resulting prejudice and disruption. Critically, the Claimant submits that the Application reflects a failure of diligence rather than a genuinely unavoidable late discovery.
11. In reply, the Defendants point out that the Claimant does not dispute the relevance of the LaPointe Statement. Further, the Defendants submit that in their application for permission to amend the Defence dated 9 April 2026, the Defendants expressly stated that they would rely on evidence form Stalliongates confirming that no valuation was ever issued. That application pre-dates the exchange of witness statements on 27 April 2026.
12. The Defendants reiterate that the Claimant has put in issue the Stalliongates Valuation, but has produced nothing on the point, confirming on oath that no relevant documents exist. She can therefore suffer no unfair prejudice from evidence on that same point.
13. The Defendants have relied on a witness statement from the First Defendant stating that the Defendants did their best to obtain the LaPointe Statement sooner, and were unable to do so.
14. The Defendants submit that excluding the LaPointe Statement would risk the Court deciding the valuation of the Claimed Shares on an unsupported figure, and admitting it would be consistent with dealing with the case justly and on the fullest, most directly relevant evidence.
Court’s Decision
Applicable Principles
15. The Court’s power to extend the deadline for compliance with any Court Order (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired) is set out at RDC 4.2(1).
16. As held in Georgia Corporation v Gavino Supplies [2016] DIFC ARB 005 (11 October 2016) at [62], RDC 4.2 confers on the Court an unfettered discretion, to be exercised taking into account all relevant circumstances and with a view to achieving justice between the parties.
17. In exercising its discretion, the Court must consider the balance of prejudice. As held in Kapova v. Makovini [2023] DIFC CFI/CA 004 (3 November 2023) by H.E. Justice Le Miere at [47], RDC 4.2(1) ‘is remedial and confers a broad power upon the Court to relieve against an injustice’.
18. The Claimant has rightly identified the factors that the Court will consider in determining the Application:
(a) The reason for the delay;
(b) Whether the evidence could with reasonable diligence have been obtained earlier;
(c) The importance and probative value of the evidence;
(d) The prejudice to the opposing party; and
(e) The impact on the efficient conduct of the proceedings and trial timetable.
19. The Court must decide in accordance with the overriding objective, the most relevant factors of which for present purposes are ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, and ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
Application to the Facts
20. The Defendants submit that they indicated in their application to amend the Defence in early April that they were seeking to obtain this evidence. The Court notes that it took over two months for the LaPointe Statement, which is dated 23 April 2026, to be submitted in these proceedings. The Defendants submit that they could do nothing to compel the provision of the LaPointe Statement. Based on the available evidence the Court concludes that, whilst the Defendants have only provided sparse reasons to explain the delay in filing the LaPointe Statement, it is unable to draw the firm conclusion that there was a lack of reasonable diligence on the part of the Defendants in obtaining it.
21. The key factors for the Court to consider in determining this Application are the probative value of the LaPointe Statement, weighed against the potential prejudice caused to the Claimant if it is admitted.
22. The Defendants submit in the Application that the LaPointe Statement “goes to the heart of the only issue the Court must decide” and that the Stalliongate Valuation is “the foundation” of the Claimant’s case on the value of the Claimed Shares. But this does not reflect the Claimant’s pleaded case.
23. Part of the Claimant’s pleaded case is that she was caused a direct financial loss of USD 200,000 by her inability to complete the sale of 4,000 of the Claimed Shares to Mr Nikola Košutić.
24. Another part of the Claimant’s pleaded case is that she was caused consequential loss of USD 600,000 on account of the cancellation of a Sale and Purchase Agreement for the sale of the remaining 6,000 of the Claimed Shares.
25. A review of the WhatsApp correspondence between Mr Košutić and the Claimant (at Annex V of the Claimant’s disclosure dated 2 February 2026) reveals that Mr Košutić was sent a number of documents relating to the valuation of the Second Respondent prior to the Claimant mentioning the Stalliongates Valuation. For example, in November 2023, he wasCommentHighlight sent a link to the Second Respondent’s data room, which included a tab named “investor summary”. In December 2023, he was sent a draft sale and purchase agreement including a valuation. On 26 April 2024, he was sent a pitch deck, a list of economic data, an overview on the Second Respondent’s technology, and a profit and loss statement for March and April. The reference to the Stalliongates Valuation of USD 120 million was sent by the Claimant to Mr Košutić on 27 May 2024. It was just one part of the data provided to him.
26. Balanced against this is the fact that the Claimant herself, in the chronology she disclosed in these proceedings, relies on the Stalliongates Valuation and alleged evidence to substantiate it.
27. The Court observes that the burden is on the Claimant to prove her claim, and if she has not adduced evidence to substantiate the Stalliongates Valuation, the valuation will not be proven. The Court observes that, even without the LaPointe Statement, nothing prevents the Defendants from relying on the absence of any documents adduced by the Claimant to substantiate the Stalliongates Valuation, inviting the Court to draw any inferences which the Defendants submit are appropriate.
28. The Court further observes that both parties have adduced and rely upon financial data for the Second Defendant on the basis that this is relevant to the valuation of the Claimed Shares. The Court considers that this evidence is far more likely to be probative of the value of the Claimed Shares than evidence alleging that the Stalliongates Valuation was never produced.
29. Accordingly, whilst at first blush the LaPointe Statement appears to be highly probative of the value of the Claimed Shares and the issues between the parties, the Court concludes that this is not in fact the case.
30. On prejudice, the Court accepts the Claimant’s submission that the Defendant has sought to introduce evidence at the very last-minute, given that the trial will begin on 27 July, and that this risks disrupting the trial timetable as well as causing potential prejudice to the Claimant’s preparation of her case. Whilst steps may be taken to mitigate any potential prejudice to the Claimant, this point is moot given the probative value of the LaPointe Statement.
31. For the reasons set out above, the Court is not satisfied that leave should be granted to the Defendants to introduce the LaPointe Statement at this stage of the case, taking all the relevant factors into account including – critically – the probative value of the evidence.
