Claim No: CFI 064/2022

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

UNION INSURANCE COMPANY PJSC

Claimant

and

INTERNATIONAL PRECIOUS METALS REFINERS LLC

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-064-2022/16 dated 17 March 2025, seeking an order to stay the DIFC Court proceedings (the “Stay Application”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi dated 12 May 2025 ordering the proceedings to be stayed (the “Stay Order”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Appeal Notice seeking permission to appeal the Stay Order (the “PTA Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s submissions in opposition dated 23 June 2025

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-064-2022/17 dated 24 June 2025 for permission to strike out the PTA Application (the “Strike Out Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s email to the Registry dated 24 June 2025, confirming that the Strike Out Application was filed for the purpose of serving as the Defendant’s submissions in opposition to the PTA Application

AND UPON reviewing the parties’ submissions on the Court file

AND UPON review of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The PTA Application is struck out.

2. The Strike Out Application is dismissed.

3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the PTA Application on the standard basis. The Defendant shall file and serve a statement of costs, not exceeding 3 pages, by no later than 4pm on Friday, 4 July 2025.

Issued By:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 26 June 2025
At: 4pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. This is my decision on the Claimant’s PTA Application. The PTA Application challenges the Stay Order which granted a stay of these DIFC Court proceedings pursuant to RDC 4.2(6).

2. For the reasons set out below, I refuse permission to appeal. I also order that the PTA Application be struck out in its entirety under RDC 44.94(1), and I find that there is a compelling reason to do so within the meaning of RDC 44.95.

3. I dispense with a recital of the procedural history, parties’ positions, and grounds of appeal, as these are fully addressed in the parties’ written submissions and supporting evidence, all of which I have reviewed in detail. I proceed directly to analysis and determination.

Ground 1 - Alleged Misstatements in the Recitals

4. The first ground of appeal is that the Stay Order purportedly contains misstatements in two Recitals: that submissions had been reviewed, and that a hearing took place on the Application. I reject this in its entirety.

5. As to the first Recital (“reviewing the submissions of both the Applicant and Respondent”), the Claimant adopts an artificial distinction by denying that submissions had been made. This is inaccurate. The Defendant filed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Witness Statements and the Claimant responded with the Seventeenth Witness Statement and Exhibit MEB17. These are submissions within the meaning of the RDC and as commonly understood by this Court. There is no merit in contending that only oral advocacy at hearing constitutes a ‘submission’. The materials were full, substantive, and plainly before the Court. The Court reviewed those submissions. The Recital accurately reflects the procedural reality and is not incorrect in any respect.

6. As to the second Recital (“hearing before H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi on 17 March 2025”), the Claimant’s contention that this misrepresents the subject matter of the hearing is unfounded and misconceived. The Recital does not state that the Stay Application was heard orally on that date. It merely records that a hearing occurred, which is factually correct. That hearing concerned Application No. CFI-064-2022/11 dated 31 December 2024, relating to the governing law of the Policy, which was procedurally and substantively intertwined with the Defendant’s Stay Application.

7. There was no ambiguity in how the Stay Application was brought. It was filed as a paper application under RDC 23.69(3). The Court was entitled to and did deal with the matter on the papers. The March hearing addressed issues that overlap factually and legally with those raised in the Stay Application, particularly the relationship between the DIFC proceedings and the onshore litigation. Those were not separate silos but parts of a coherent procedural history which the Court was required to assess holistically in granting the stay. The suggestion that the Court was misled as to what was heard, or that the Recital misstates the procedural record, is meritless.

8. I also find the Claimant’s attack on the Court’s understanding of the applications before it to be not only unsubstantiated, but discourteous. There is no basis for the insinuation that the Court misunderstood which application was being dealt with. I was and remain fully aware of the sequence and subject of each application.

9. The Claimant’s effort to construct a ground of appeal out of a procedurally accurate recital borders on vexatious and is without legal or factual merit. It is accordingly struck out.

Ground 2 – Alleged Unfairness

10. This ground asserts that the Court breached principles of natural justice by failing to afford the Claimant an opportunity to be heard. I reject this categorically.

11. The Claimant filed voluminous evidence in response to the Stay Application. That constituted its opportunity to be heard. The Stay Application was filed without a hearing, in accordance with RDC 23.69(3), and the relevant fee was paid for determination without hearing. There was nothing unfair about the process. The Court's decision to determine the matter on the basis of the written evidence and submissions does not, in itself, give rise to procedural unfairness.

12. The Defendant was entitled to make the application without hearing. The Claimant chose to respond by evidence alone. The Court chose to resolve the matter on the papers pursuant to its case management powers. That is wholly consistent with RDC 23.69(3) and the overriding objective in RDC 1.6.

13. Most significantly, the very premise of the Stay Application and the central rationale for the Stay Order was that the issues before the DIFC Court had already been finally resolved by the onshore courts. As set out in paragraphs 24 to 26 and 31 of the Stay Order, I was satisfied that there was nothing left to adjudicate.

14. The underlying claim had reached finality, and execution proceedings were already underway. The DIFC claim substantially overlapped with matters conclusively determined in the Sharjah proceedings. In those circumstances, there was no longer a live controversy requiring resolution, and no hearing was necessary. The only remaining step was to stay the duplicative proceedings in this Court as a procedural consequence of that finality. This was an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion under RDC 4.2(6) and RDC 23.69(3) and was entirely consistent with the overriding objective.

15. This ground is devoid of any merit and is also struck out.

Ground 3 – Alleged Failure to Comply with RDC 4.13

16. The Claimant argues that the Stay Order, being made without a hearing, must have contained a statement informing the parties of their right to apply to set aside, vary, or stay the Order. This argument fails both factually and legally.

17. RDC 4.13 only applies where an order is made by the Court on its own initiative under RDC 4.12. That was not the case here. The Stay Order was made upon a formal application filed by the Defendant, supported by evidence and accompanied by the correct fee. It was not made under the Court’s own motion, and therefore RDC 4.13 was not engaged.

18. Even if this allegation is true, it is irrelevant and immaterial. The Claimant suffered no prejudice as a result. The Claimant has in fact filed a PTA Application and an appeal, thus exercising its right to challenge the Order. To suggest that the absence of a recital deprived the Claimant of an opportunity to contest the Order is demonstrably false. This confirms that it suffered no disadvantage or procedural unfairness.

19. The Claimant’s reliance on the absence of this recital is opportunistic and disingenuous. It is not a substantive ground of appeal. It advances no legal error, identifies no miscarriage of justice, and alleges no real impairment of the Claimant’s ability to be heard. The argument irrelevant and goes against the overriding objective under RDC 1.6, which emphasises the need to deal with cases justly, efficiently, and in a proportionate manner.

20. Considering the above, I find this ground wholly unmeritorious and procedurally frivolous. It is accordingly struck out.

Ground 4 – Alleged Insufficient Material

21. The Claimant’s assertion that the Court lacked sufficient material to determine the Stay Application is entirely meritless.

22. I had before me extensive submissions filed over a considerable period, comprising detailed factual and legal argument dating back to 2022. The matter has been examined thoroughly in previous applications, including those addressing jurisdiction and the impact of the Sharjah litigation. The documentary record was substantial and complete.

23. Critically, the very foundation upon which the Stay Order rests is the undisputed finality of the final and binding judgment of the Sharjah Court of Appeal, affirmed by the Union Supreme Court. That finality meant there remained no issue requiring adjudication by this Court. As explained at paragraph 30 of the Stay Order, Article 14(C)(2) of the DIFC Courts Law is engaged where a final judgment from another UAE court is capable of enforcement within the DIFC, and the existence of such a judgment is a compelling factor supporting the Stay.

24. In these circumstances, the Court’s discretion under RDC 23.69(3) to determine the application without a hearing was properly exercised. The relevant procedural framework does not require the Court to convene a hearing where the dispute has already been conclusively resolved and where justice, efficiency, and consistency support final disposal on the papers. The assertion that a hearing was necessary as a matter of fairness is misconceived and unsupported by any authority.

25. There was no procedural deficiency and no absence of relevant material. This ground is accordingly rejected and struck out.

Ground 5 – Alleged Requirement for an Oral Hearing

26. The Claimant contends that an oral hearing was required owing to the significance of the Stay Application. That submission is misconceived and inconsistent with the structure of the RDC.

27. RDC 23.69(3) permits the Court to determine an application without a hearing where it considers that a hearing is not appropriate. That discretion was properly exercised. The Defendant designated the Application to be determined without a hearing, and the corresponding fee was paid on that basis.

28. While the Defendant initially indicated agreement to an oral hearing in correspondence, that position was withdrawn after receipt of the Claimant’s evidence. As explained at paragraph 18 of the Defendant’s Fifteenth Witness Statement: “the Defendant’s agreement to an oral hearing was made under different facts and circumstances, which have now changed. At the time the parties had decided to engage in an oral hearing, the parallel onshore proceedings had not then reached their final determination.” Once the Union Supreme Court issued its judgment, there was no remaining legal or factual issue requiring further adjudication. The Court was not bound by earlier correspondence; the only question was whether a hearing remained necessary. It did not.

29. The Court retains wide procedural discretion under the RDC to give effect to the overriding objective. It would have been disproportionate to list a hearing where the issues had been conclusively resolved and the evidence was sufficient for determination on the papers.

30. Most significantly, the very premise of the Stay Application was that the subject matter of the dispute had been finally adjudicated in the onshore courts. That premise had materialised. The Sharjah Courts had determined the dispute, and execution proceedings were underway. No further input was required.

31. I reject the Claimant’s assertion that procedural fairness necessitated an oral hearing. This ground is without merit and is struck out.

Expedition

32. I also reject the Claimant’s request for expedited determination. The request fails to demonstrate any urgency or importance sufficient to justify deviation from the normal timetable. No imminent prejudice has been demonstrated.

Conclusion

33. The PTA Application is wholly devoid of merit. Each ground of appeal is either factually inaccurate, legally baseless, procedurally flawed, or entirely redundant. It is, in substance, a transparent attempt to reopen matters that have already been fully argued, determined, and disposed of by the onshore courts. That is not the function of an appeal, and it is certainly not the function of this Court to indulge such misuse of process.

34. I am entirely satisfied that there exists a compelling reason under RDC 44.95 to strike out both the Appeal Notice and the PTA Application under RDC 44.94(1) and (2). The proceedings are stayed. The legal and factual issues have been definitively resolved by the onshore courts. There remains nothing for this Court to adjudicate. It is not in the interests of justice to permit these proceedings to be prolonged any further.

35. The PTA Application including the Appeal Notice are accordingly struck out in full.

36. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the Application on the standard basis. The Defendant shall file and serve a statement of costs, not exceeding 3 pages, within 5 days from the issuance of this Order.