June 08, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 079/2023
IN 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 Judgment of H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere dated 6 April 2026 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Consent Order dated 22 May 2026
AND UPON the Claimant’s draft order dated 1 June 2026
AND UPON the Claimant’s submissions on the points of disagreement arising out of the draft order dated 1 June 2026
AND UPON the Defendant’s points of disagreement arising out of the draft order dated 1 June 2026
AND UPON the Defendant’s Application seeking permission to file further submissions (the “Defendant’s Application”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants may file and serve further written submissions in reply, limited to matters arising from the Claimants’ submissions filed on 1 June 2026, by no later than 4pm (GST) on 10 June 2026 (such submissions shall not exceed 10 pages).
2. The Claimants may file and serve a short reply, limited to matters arising from the Defendants’ further submissions, by no later than 4pm (GST) on 16 June 2026 (any such reply shall not exceed 5 pages).
3. No further submissions may be filed without permission.
4. The final form of order will be determined on the papers following receipt of any further submissions.
5. There is no order as to the costs of the Defendant’s Application.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 8 June 2026
At: 3pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
A. Introduction
1. This judgment concerns a procedural application arising during the process of settling the form of order to give effect to the Court’s substantive Judgment dated 6 April 2026.
2. By that Judgment, the Court directed the parties to confer in good faith to agree on the form of order, and, failing agreement, to file short memoranda identifying points of disagreement and setting out each party’s proposed orders, with submissions not exceeding 10 pages. The Court indicated that the final form of order would be determined on the papers unless otherwise directed.
3. The parties have been unable to agree the terms of the order. They have filed draft orders and written submissions. The present issue arises from the Defendants’ request to file further submissions in reply to the Claimants’ submissions filed on 2 June 2026 (the “Defendant’s Application”).
B. The Procedural History
4. Following the Judgment, the parties engaged in a process of conferral and exchange of draft orders, during which the time for filing was extended on several occasions by consent orders.
5. The final deadline for filing the draft order and submissions was 1 June 2026.
6. On 2 June 2026, the Claimants filed:
(a) a draft order identifying the areas of disagreement; and
(b) written submissions on those points.
7. The Defendants filed submissions addressing the draft order, but contend that:
(a) the Claimants’ developed position was communicated shortly before the deadline, over a weekend and public holiday period;
(b) the Claimants’ submissions were lengthy and exceeded the page limits directed by the Court; and
(c) they were afforded insufficient time to take instructions and respond.
8. On that basis, the Defendants seek permission to file further submissions by 10 June 2026.
9. The Claimants oppose that Application, contending that:
(a) their position had been communicated earlier in the process;
(b) the Defendants had sufficient opportunity to respond; and
(c) any further submissions would confer an unfair forensic advantage.
C. The Issue
10. The question for determination is whether the Defendants should be granted permission to file further written submissions in reply, and if so, on what terms.
D. Applicable Principles
11. Three considerations are central.
D1. Nature and purpose of the process
12. The present process is not a rehearing of the case. It is a limited exercise focused on settling the form of order to give effect to the Court’s judgment. The parties were required to identify points of disagreement and confine their submissions to that task.
13. It follows that:
(a) the scope of any further submissions must remain tightly controlled; and
(b) the process must not be permitted to expand into a further round of substantive argument.
D2. Procedural fairness
14. The Court must ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to address the points on which it is to decide the form of order.
15. The Defendants’ complaint, in substance, is that:
(a) the Claimants’ developed position was finalised and communicated late in the process; and
(b) the Claimants’ submissions were extensive, exceeding the limits contemplated by the Court’s directions.
16. In circumstances where:
(a) the task before the Court is to resolve disputed questions of form and scope of relief; and
(b) the Court has not yet determined those issues,
it is appropriate to ensure that both parties have had a proper opportunity to address the matters relied on by the other.
D3. Finality and control of the process
17. Balanced against fairness is the need for finality.
18. The Court has already:
(a) directed that the matter be determined on the papers; and
(b) extended the timetable on multiple occasions.
19. There is a clear need to bring the process to a conclusion. Any further step must therefore be:
(a) limited in scope;
(b) strictly controlled; and
(c) final.
E. Consideration
E1. Whether further submissions should be permitted
20. In my view, some limited further opportunity should be afforded to the Defendants.
21. That conclusion rests on two principal considerations.
22. First, the Claimants’ submissions are of a length and detail which materially exceed the concise memoranda contemplated by the Court’s directions. The process has thereby moved beyond the narrow structure originally directed.
23. Secondly, the timing of the final exchange — in particular the proximity to the deadline and the intervening holiday period — can support the Defendants’ contention that they did not have a full opportunity to address the Claimants’ developed arguments.
24. Taken together, those matters justify permitting a further, confined response.
E2. Scope of any further submissions
25. However, it is essential to confine the scope of any further submissions.
26. The process is directed to the form of order only. It is not open to the parties to introduce new issues or to re-argue matters already determined in the Judgment.
27. Accordingly:
(a) any further submissions must be limited to matters arising from the Claimants’ submissions;
(b) they must not raise new points or introduce new evidence; and
(c) they must be concise.
E3. Reciprocal fairness
28. If the Defendants are permitted a further response, fairness requires that the Claimants be afforded an opportunity, if they wish, to reply.
29. That reply should also be strictly limited and concise.
E4. Page limits and compliance with directions
30. The Court’s original directions required memoranda not exceeding 10 pages.
31. The apparent departure from that requirement has contributed to the present difficulty.
32. It is appropriate to make clear that:
(a) the Court will place weight only on submissions that comply with the intended brevity of the directions; and
(b) excessive or repetitive material will not be of assistance to the Court.
E5. Finality
33. Finally, it is necessary to make clear that no further rounds of submissions will be permitted.
34. Once the further submissions directed below are filed, the Court will determine the final form of order on the papers.
F. Costs
35. I make no order as to costs in respect of the Defendants’ Application. The reasons are, shortly these:
(a) Mixed outcome - The Defendants succeeded in obtaining permission to file further submissions, but in a qualified form, and on the basis that the Claimants may file further submissions. The result of the Application is therefore mixed.
(b) Shared responsibility - The Application was necessitated in part by the Claimants’ approach, including the length of their submissions and the timing of the final exchange. At the same time, the Defendants’ Application sought an indulgence. Responsibility for the Application's need is therefore shared.
(c) Case management context - The Application arises from a procedural process for settling the form of order, rather than from a discrete substantive dispute. In that context, it is appropriate to avoid satellite litigation over costs.
(d) Avoidance of disproportionate costs consequences - Given the limited scope and significance of the Application, and the divided responsibility, it would be disproportionate to make an adverse costs order against either party.
G. Orders
36. The Court therefore makes the following orders:
Further submissions by the Defendants
(a) The Defendants may file and serve further written submissions in reply, limited to matters arising from the Claimants’ submissions filed on 1 June 2026, by no later than 4pm (GST) on 10 June 2026.
(b) Such submissions shall not exceed 10 pages.
Reply by the Claimants
(c) The Claimants may file and serve a short reply, limited to matters arising from the Defendants’ further submissions, by no later than 4pm (GST) on 16 June 2026.
(d) Any such reply shall not exceed 5 pages.
No further submissions
(e) No further submissions may be filed without permission.
Determination on the papers
(f) The final form of order will be determined on the papers following receipt of any further submissions.
Costs
(g) There is no order as to the costs of the Defendant’s Application.
