October 29, 2025 Court of Appeal - Orders
Claim No. CFI 058/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
ATUL DHAWAN ASHOK AMIR CHAND DHAWAN
Claimant
and
RAMZI WAHIB EL JAOUHARI
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART KC
UPON the Part 7 Claim Form filed on 21 August 2024 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the Case Management Conference held before H.E. Roger Stewart K.C with the Claimant and the Defendant in attendance (the “CMC”)
AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 7 May 2025, requiring the Claimant to file Amended Particulars of Claim specifying the legal basis upon which the sums claimed in the Statement of Costs are advanced and providing full particulars of any alleged fraud or cheating as well as any loss of business claimed by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 21 May 2025 (the “7 May Order”)
AND UPON the Claimant filing Amended Particulars of Claim on 21 May 2025
AND UPON the Defendant filing a “Reply to Defence” on 22 July 2025
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 22 September 2025, requiring the parties to attend a hearing to consider whether all or part of the Amended Particulars of Claim should be struck out and/or whether the action should be transferred to the Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) (the “22 September Order”)
AND UPON considering the Claimant’s skeleton arguments dated 14 and 22 October 2025 and the Defendant’s skeleton arguments dated 16 and 21 October 2025
AND UPON hearing the parties at a Hearing before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart on 23 October 2025 (the “Hearing”)
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. The Claimant’s claims for AED 1,000,000 as damages for fraud and cheating, AED 500,000 for double charging money by threatening delay on nonpayment and AED 780,000 for “making us pay to his vendors to complete job early and still not delivering” are struck out, pursuant to RDC 4.16, on the basis that they disclose no reasonable ground for bringing or defending the Claim and/or that they constitute an abuse of the Court’s process and/or that they are otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings and/or there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.
2. The Claimant is to file Re-Amended Particulars of Claim by no later than 4pm on Monday, 10 November 2025 which:
(a) Identifies the fraud relied on as set out in paragraphs 1d and 5b of the Claimant’s skeleton argument of 22 October 2025;
(b) Particularises by date the occasions when it is said that false representations were made by the Defendant; and
(c) Identifies the claimed period of loss of business at a gross rate of AED 2,500 per day with the date when the loss of business is said to have started and ended, and gives details of all savings accepted as having been made from such gross rate.
3. The Defendant is to file an Amended Defence responding to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim and also identifying any defence based upon the fact that the dispute has already been finally determined in an alternative forum by no later than 4pm on Monday, 24 November 2025.
4. The Claimant is to file a Reply, if so advised, by no later than 4pm on Monday, 8 December 2025.
5. On or before 4pm on Friday, 14 November 2025, the parties are to exchange lists of 3 neutral individuals who are available to conduct alternative dispute resolution procedures in this case prior to Friday, 23 January 2026.
6. On or before Friday, 21 November 2025, the parties shall in good faith endeavour to agree a neutral individual from the lists so exchanged and provided.
7. Failing such agreement by Friday, 21 November 2025, the parties are to advise the Court as to their position in relation to the selection of an individual and the Court will issue directions.
8. If the case is not finally settled by Friday, 6 February 2026, the parties shall inform the Court by letter, prior to exchange of witness statements, what steps towards alternative dispute resolution have been taken and, without prejudice to matters of privilege, why such steps have failed. If the parties have failed to initiate alternative dispute resolution procedures, the Case Management Conference is to be restored for further consideration of the case.
9. By no later than 4pm on Monday, 15 December 2025 each party shall submit to the other party:
(a) All documents available to it on which it relies, including public documents and those in the public domain, except for any documents that have already been submitted by the other party; and
(b) The documents which he is required to produce by any Law, Rule or Practice Direction.
10. By no later than 4pm on Friday, 20 February 2026, the parties are to serve and file the witness statements upon which they rely in support of their case.
11. The Case Management Conference is then to be restored with a time estimate of one hour.
12. Costs shall be in the case.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 29 October 2025
At: 3pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The relevant background and essential procedural position are summarised in the reasons accompanying the 22 September Order.
2. Following the 22 September Order, the Claimant and the Defendant, each acting in person, provided two skeleton arguments and attended the Hearing.
3. Relevantly:
(a) The Claimant’s second skeleton argument gave details of the alleged fraud upon which he relied; and
(b) The Defendant also identified a possible argument to the effect that this dispute has already been finally determined by the Dubai Courts.
Pleadings
4. The Court considers that the details provided by the Claimant, with details of when the alleged fraudulent statements were made, are sufficient for the case to go to trial but that they require to be pleaded.
5. After discussion with the Claimant, it is apparent
(a) That the claim for loss of business proceeds upon the basis of an alleged gross loss of AED 2,500 per day for a three-year period although some savings will have been made in respect of the same;
(b) That the claims for AED 1,000,000 as damages for fraud and cheating, AED 500,000 for double charging money by threatening delay on nonpayment and AED 780,000 for “making us pay to his vendors to complete job early and still not delivering” were either entirely duplicative of other claims or were simply round sums which the Claimant considered he should be paid without any underlying basis.
(c) That he is unable to provide any further details or information in respect of the alleged claims.
6. I consider it plain that, with the exception of the loss of business claim, there is no legal or factual basis that has been made out for the above claims which are large in the context of this action. I consider that their continued presence in the action is embarrassing and serves no purpose. I accordingly order that they are struck out pursuant to RDC 4.16.
7. I have considerable doubts as to whether the loss of business claim will survive, at least to any substantial extent, at trial. However there is a pleaded and understandable basis for it and I do not consider it right to strike the claim out.
8. The consequence is that the Claim is above the SCT limit and it would not be right to transfer it.
9. In his skeleton arguments, the Defendant suggested that there was already a binding judgment in relation to this dispute from the Dubai Courts. This assertion needs to be pleaded which explains the order made in respect of the Defence.
Other Orders
10. This dispute stems from a relatively small building contract. Each party has already spent enormous effort on it with, apparently, 3 actions in the Dubai Courts as well as this action. I consider that it is crying out for a serious attempt at settlement. Having raised the matter with the parties, I consider it appropriate to make Alternative Dispute Resolution orders, which I have done.
11. The settlement window appears to be in January of 2026.
12. Each party confirmed it did not require documents from the other party and could produce its own documents quickly. I have accordingly not made orders allowing document requests from the other side.
13. If settlement fails, it is clear that witness statements will be required and I have ordered them. After that time, I consider it appropriate for the Court to consider the matter further.
