Claim No: CFI 079/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) THAMER ABDULAZIZ ALBULAIHID
(2) MOUSTAFA EL SAYED ABDULGHANI EL SHAFAEI

Claimants

and

(1) NASSER SHEHATA
(2) HEALTH INSIGHTS FZ-LLC
(3) HEALTH INSIGHTS ASIA (L) BHD

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE

UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere dated 17 September 2025 (the “Order”)

AND UPON the First and Third Defendants’ Application No. CFI-079-2023/12 dated 3 October 2025 seeking an order for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 44.10 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) (the “Application”)

AND PURSUANT TO the RDC

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is granted.

2. The time for filing a notice of appeal against the Order is extended until 21 days after the written reasons for that decision are made available to the parties.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 31 October 2025
At: 11am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. By application No. CFI-079-2023/12 issued on 3 October 2025, the First and Third Defendants have applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Order of H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere issued on 17 September 2025, dismissing:

2. The Application is supported by the witness statement of Dr Karen Seif, Counsel and Head of Arbitration at Habib Al Mulla and Partners, the firm representing the First and Third Defendants. The Application seeks an extension of time until 21 days after the reasons for the order of 17 September 2025 are made available.

3. Without prejudice to the Claimants’ position on the merits of any application that may be brought by the First and/or Third Defendant for permission to appeal, the Claimants have confirmed that they do not oppose the Application brought for an extension to the time for seeking an appeal.

4. The relevant procedural rules are RDC 44.6(2), which provides that an appellant’s application for permission to appeal must be made to the lower court in an appellant’s notice, and RDC 44.10, which provides that an appellant must file the appellant’s notice within such period as may be directed by the lower court, or, in the absence of such a direction, within 21 days after the date of the decision. The decision in this case was given on 11 September 2025, but the order did not issue until 17 September 2025, and the reasons have not yet been provided.

5. The Court accepts that the absence of reasons for the decision is a material consideration. As noted in McDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4, where a judge announces a decision with reasons to follow, time for appeal begins to run from the date of the decision. However, the Court of Appeal emphasised that it should be standard practice, unless there are very unusual circumstances, for the lower court to extend time for an application to appeal until a specified period—normally 21 days after the reasons are promulgated. This approach ensures fairness and allows parties to make informed decisions about whether to appeal.

6. The Court also notes the decision in Kralj v Royal Vision Intelligent Fund Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 025, where H.E. Justice Michael Black exercised the Court’s discretion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal even after the deadline had expired. This case confirms that under RDC 4.2(1), the DIFC Court has the power to extend time for compliance with any rule or order, and that such discretion may be exercised in appropriate circumstances to ensure fairness and uphold the overriding objective.

7. The Court is satisfied that the First and Third Defendants have acted promptly and reasonably. The application was made within 21 days of the issue of the order, and immediately following an intensive 8-day trial, during which the First Defendant was under cross-examination for the final three days and unable to give instructions.

8. The Court further accepts that the First and Third Defendants are not seeking to delay proceedings but to preserve their position pending receipt of the reasons. This is consistent with the overriding objective under RDC 1.6, which requires the Court to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

9. In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that it is just and appropriate to grant the Application.

10. The time for filing a notice of appeal against the Order is extended until 21 days after the written reasons for that decision are made available to the parties