Claim No: CFI 054/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

INNOVATIVE PRODUCTION GROUP FZE

Claimant

and

INNOVATION FACTORY ROYAL INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 30 May 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim dated 3 December 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-054-2025/2 dated 26 December 2026, seeking an unless order (the “Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Request for Default Judgment dated 13 January 2026 (the “Request”) (together, the “Applications”)

AND UPON the Defendant failing to file any evidence in answer to the Applications

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. There will be no order on the Application.

2. The Request is granted.

3. There will be judgment for the Claimant in the following sums:

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 March 2026
At: 1pm

1. There are currently two outstanding applications by the Claimant: the first in time is dated 26 December 2025 seeking an unless order in respect of the costs ordered to be paid by the Defendant in the sum of AED 272,593.39 under a failed jurisdiction challenge; the second is dated 13 January 2026, seeking judgment in default of defence under Rule 13.7 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”). Since I shall grant the latter application, the former application has become moot.

2. RDC 13.5 provides that judgment in default of defence may be obtained only— (1) where an acknowledgement of service (“AOS”) has been filed but a defence has not been filed. RDC 13.6 provides the claimant may not obtain a default judgment under certain circumstances and not unless the claimant has filed a certificate of service (“COS”) under RDC 9.43. By RDC 9.43 where the claim form is served by the claimant, the claimant must file a COS not later than 7 days after the date for the filing by the defendant of the AOS, unless by that date the AOS has been filed. By RDC 13.7 a claimant may obtain a default judgment by filing a request in Form P13/01 or Form P13/02.

3. I am satisfied that the Defendant has failed to file a defence in accordance with the RDC. RDC 16.9 states that the general rule is that the period for filing a defence is: (1) 14 days after service of the particulars of claim (“POC”); or (2) if the defendant files an AOS under Part 11, 28 days after service of the POC.

4. A brief summary of the relevant steps in the proceedings is as follows: proceedings were commenced on 30 May 2025. On 22 July 2025 the Defendant belatedly filed an AOS indicating its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. Following the failure of the jurisdiction challenge (filed on 6 August 2025), the Defendant filed an amended AOS on 3 November 2025 indicating its intention to defend all of the claim. The POC were filed on the DIFC e-Registry portal on 3 December 2025. The service and filing of the COS upon the Defendant took place on 4 December 2025. The Defendant was required to file its defence on 1 January 2026. Since 1 January 2026 was a public holiday in UAE, the deadline to file the defence was 2 January 2026. No defence was filed on 2 January 2026, nor at any time thereafter. No application seeking an extension of time for service of the defence has been made.

5. I am satisfied that the criteria entitling the Claimant to judgment in default of defence under RDC 13.5 have been satisfied and none of the circumstances in RDC 13.6 apply. I cannot locate a certificate of service of the claim form not later than 7 days after the date for the filing by the Defendant of the AOS (there was a COS of the POC on 4 December 2025), but here an Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser made 25 July 2025 accepted the late service of the AOS. There was a COS of the claim form filed on 18 August 2025 indicating that the claim form was served on 30 May 2025. There can be no doubt the claim form was received by the Defendant. Insofar as the strict terms of RDC 9.43 may not have been observed, I can see no prejudice to the Defendant and I extend the time for compliance with RDC 9.43 to 18 August 2025 under RDC 4.2(1).

6. The following claims were made in the POC:

7. RDC 17.18(1)(b) states that if the claimant is seeking interest it must state whether it is doing so under an enactment and if so which. The POC included a claim for interest under Article 118 of the Contract Law 2004 and Article 17 of the Law of Damages and Remedies 2005, and/or Rule 36.32 of RDC 2014, on such sums as are found due to it at such rate and for such period as the Court think fit. RDC 13.14 provides that a default judgment on a claim for a specified amount of money obtained on the filing of a request may include the amount of interest claimed to the date of judgment if the claim form includes the details required by RDC 17.18 and, where interest is claimed under Article 118 of the Contract Law 2004 or Article 17of the Law of Damages and Remedies 2005 the request for judgment should include a calculation of the interest claimed for the period from the date up to which interest was stated to be calculated in the claim form to the date of the request for judgment.

8. In accordance with the provisions set out in the preceding paragraph the Claimant also claims interest as follows:

9. The rate of interest claimed is in the discretion of the Court. The Claimant has claimed simple interest at the rate of 9% which is equivalent to the rate on judgments under Practice Direction 4 of 2017 – Interest on Judgments. In the circumstances of this case where there is evidence of “a careless or indifferent disregard of the proceedings” on the part of the Defendant (see paragraph 37 of my amended judgment dismissing the jurisdiction challenge dated 17 October 2025) I consider that it is appropriate that the rate of 9% shall apply both before as well as after judgment.

10. The Claimant claims its costs to be subject to an immediate assessment. The Claimant has prepared a Statement of Costs which includes the costs incurred during the Jurisdiction Objection Application stage. I have examined the Statement of Costs, the hourly rates used all fall within Registrar’s Direction 1 of 2023 – Indicative Hourly Charges. The hours claimed do not appear disproportionate. The disbursement claimed are all particularised and largely comprise Court Fees. I am content to assess the costs claimed as sought, namely the unpaid failed challenge costs of AED 272,593.39, plus other costs of AED 690,089.78, plus disbursements of AED 57,365.24, namely AED 1,020,048.41.

11. In the circumstances it is ordered as follows: