Claim No: CFI 064/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN:

SANJA BOSKOVIC

Claimant

and

MIRABAUD (MIDDLE EAST) LTD

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE THOMAS BATHURST

UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst dated 20 November 2025 (the “CMO”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst dated 20 May 2026 (the “20 May Order”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst dated 30 June 2026

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-064-2025/6 dated 17 July 2026 made pursuant to the CMO and paragraph 6 of the 20 May Order (the “Claimant’s Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-064-2025/7 dated 3 August 2026, for an extension to the deadline for service of its expert report on banking matters (the “Defendant’s Application”)

AND UPON review of the submissions on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant shall have leave to file a supplementary report of Hannah Rossiter dealing with the documents produced by the Defendant on 15 July 2026 (the “Additional Documents”).

2. The Claimant shall have leave to file an additional affidavit by the Claimant dealing with the Additional Documents.

3. The parties shall have leave to refer the Additional Documents to the party’s forensic handwriting expert for evaluation and report.

4. The Claimant’s further report and witness statement referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be filed by no later than 4pm on 16 September 2026.

5. The Defendant shall file any witness statement in response to any additional statement filed by the Claimant and to any banking expert report on which it seeks to rely in response to the reports of Ms Rossiter by no later than 4pm on 7 October 2026.

6. The matter be listed for a further Case Management Conference on a date convenient to the Court and the parties after 7 October 2026.

7. The costs of the Claimant’s Application and the Defendant’s Application shall be costs in the cause.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 10 September 2026
At: 2pm

1. By an Application dated 17 July 2026 the Claimant sought the following orders:

2. In his affidavit in support of the Claimant’s Application, the solicitor for the Claimant, Mr Antonios Dimitracopoulos, referred to the 20 May Order in which I dismissed the Claimant’s application for production by the Defendant of two categories of documents described in that application as Requests 2 and 23. Request 2 sought onboarding client file information including documents recording the purpose of the relationship, expected activity/transaction pattern, investment objectives, risk profile and onboarding/suitability assessments. Request 23 sought enrolment/de-enrolment dates, login history and statement generation/dispatch/return/availability logs for the period 2015 to 2019.

3. In his affidavit, Mr Dimitracopoulos referred to an email from the Defendant’s solicitors to his firm stating that his client had located certain additional documents from its archives responsive to the existing Document Production Requests. The document, said to be responsive to Request 2, was described as “Project Operation and Financing Agreement No.1009/15” (the “Financing Agreement”), the documents said to fall within Request 23 were described as “account statements and related account reporting documents”. They were said to be produced in response to the Defendant’s ongoing disclosure obligations.

4. Mr Dimitracopoulos asserted the documents were produced notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant’s response to the initial request for production certified the completion of its search in respect of Requests 2 and 23.

5. Mr Dimitracopoulos stated that his client’s position was that the Financing Agreement is fabricated and the signature attributed to her on it is a forgery. He states that she denies having signed the document and disputes the transaction it purports to record.

6. The solicitor for the Claimant submits that the combination of the Financing Agreement and the account statements produced under Request 23 warrants the making of the orders to which I have referred in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c). He also submits that having regard to the circumstances of the production of those documents, the orders to which I have referred in paragraph 1(d) and (e) should be made and that the Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs of the Claimant’s Application on an indemnity basis. It provides detailed reasons in support of the making of those orders which I have read. However, having regard to the conclusion which I have reached, it is unnecessary to set them out.

7. In its response, the Defendant states that it does not object to the orders to which I have referred in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) on the basis that it is entitled to file a supplemental expert report from its banking expert if the expert deems it appropriate, a further witness statement should the Defendant deem it appropriate and a supplemental expert’s report from the Defendant’s handwriting expert.

8. In respect of the other orders sought it also made detailed submissions as to why those orders should not be made, criticises the Claimant’s conduct of the proceedings and itself seeks an order for indemnity costs. Once again, having regard to the conclusions which I have reached it is unnecessary to set these submissions out nor is it necessary to deal with the Claimant’s submissions in response.

9. In my opinion, it is appropriate to make orders to the effect of those set out in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) above. I am not prepared to make the orders to the effect of those set out in paragraphs 1(d), (e) and (f). It does not seem to me that the late production of a limited number of documents which probably should have been produced earlier warrants taking this step. Nor does it warrant an order for indemnity costs. Equally it seems unproductive to me to deal with the Defendant’s complaints about the Claimant’s conduct of the proceedings to date, much less to make an order for indemnity costs in its favour in respect of the Claimant’s Application.

10. I am of the view that the appropriate order for costs should be that the costs of the Claimant’s Application should be costs in the cause.

11. In an Application made on 3 August 2026, the Defendant has applied for an extension of four weeks up to 11 September 2026 (wrongly stated as 11 September 2024 in the Defendant’s Application) to file its banking expert’s report. This is primarily on the basis that the expert retained by it has stated that additional time is necessary for the preparation of the report.

12. The Claimant opposes the extension. Having regard to the fact that I propose to grant the Claimant leave to file an additional banking expert’s report dealing with the matters raised by the production of the documents in response to the Requests 2 and 23, it seems to me that the preferable course is to order that the additional report be filed and order that the Defendant file a banking expert’s report in response to both of the Claimant’s reports. Once again, costs should be costs in the cause.

13. Finally, by letter to the Registry of 6 August 2026, the Claimant has sought leave that its additional expert report extend to dealing with matters raised in an affidavit of Julian Raphael Prante filed on 4 August 2026 said to be in response to the Second Affidavit of the Claimant but which the Claimant asserts deals with additional matters. The Registry has also been supplied with a letter of 7 August 2026 written by the solicitors for the Defendant to the solicitors for the Claimant noting that the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s submissions in respect of the Defendant’s Application to file an additional banking expert report included allegations of fabrication and forgery which it states have not been pleaded in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim. The letter states that Rule 17.43(1) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts requires that “full and specific details of any allegation of fraud, dishonesty, malice or illegality” are to be set out in a party’s statement of case if such matters are to be relied upon. The letter states that the Claimant is not entitled to rely on such application in the absence of any such particulars.

14. No application has been made to me in respect of the matters raised in these two letters and it is only necessary for me to note their contents.

15. In the circumstances I would make the following orders: