Claim No: CFI 078/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

CAPITAL VENTURES FZCO

Claimant

and

GFH PARTNERS MANRRE REIT (CEIC) PLC

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-078-2025/1 dated 8 September 2025, seeking an extension of time to file its evidence in reply to the Part 8 Claim (the “Defendant’s Application”)

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Defendant’s Application supported by the Witness Statement of Mr Othmane Saadani Hassani dated 11 September 2025

AND UPON the Defendant’s evidence in reply dated 12 September 2025

AND UPON reviewing the case file and documents recorded therein

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The time for the Defendant to file and serve its written evidence in response to the Part 8 Claim shall be extended to 4pm on Monday, 22 September 2025.

2. The Claimant shall file and serve any evidence in reply by no later than 4pm on Monday, 6 October 2025.

3. The costs of this Application shall be costs in the case.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 September 2025
At: 10am

1. On 19 August 2025, the Claimant filed a Pre-Action Disclosure Application pursuant to RDC 28.47, which was commenced by way of a Part 8 Claim Form (the “Part 8 Claim Application”).

2. The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 5 September 2025, indicating its intention to defend the Application. As 5 September 2025 was a Court holiday, the effective deadline for filing evidence was automatically extended to 8 September 2025, in accordance with RDC 2.15.

3. Prior to the expiration of the time for filing evidence, on 2 September 2025, the Defendant’s newly instructed legal representatives, Al Tamimi & Company, wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors requesting a 14-day extension of time, until 22 September 2025, to file and serve the Defendant’s evidence. This request was made pursuant to RDC 8.31 and 8.32, which allow parties to agree to a short extension of time for the service of evidence in Part 8 claims.

4. On 3 September 2025, the Claimant’s solicitors responded, offering only a limited 7-day extension and attaching a condition that it be “strictly for the purpose of preparing the evidence and documents to be disclosed in accordance with the Part 8 claim”. No agreement was reached between the parties.

5. On 8 September 2025, the Defendant filed an application, seeking an extension of time to file and serve its evidence in response to the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim Application.

6. The Defendant submits that it requires the requested extension on the basis that its legal representatives had only recently been instructed, that additional time is needed to take instructions and prepare the evidence, and that denying the extension would risk piecemeal or incomplete evidence, to the prejudice of the Defendant and in contravention of the overriding objective in RDC 1.6.

7. The Claimant opposes the application on the grounds that no reasons were initially provided for the extension request and that the Defendant has not demonstrated a proper basis to depart from the standard time limits under RDC 8.26. The Claimant also relies on its willingness to grant a limited extension, which the Defendant did not accept.

8. The Court finds that the Defendant has acted promptly in seeking an extension and has provided sufficient justification for the request. The fact that new legal representatives were only recently appointed is a legitimate consideration, and it is in the interests of justice that the Defendant be afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare a full and proper response to the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim Application.

9. In addition, the length of the extension sought is reasonable in length and falls within the scope contemplated by RDC 8.32. No hearing has yet been scheduled, and no material prejudice to the Claimant has been demonstrated. Moreover, permitting the Defendant to file its evidence in a complete and timely manner will assist the Court in dealing with the matter justly and efficiently.

10. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the extension of time shall be granted.