Claim No: CFI 079/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

SHUFTI PRO DIGITAL ID VERIFICATION SERVICES LIMITED

Claimant

and

AHMAD JAMAL

Defendant

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

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 21 August 2025 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of service dated 9 September 2025 (the “Acknowledgment of service”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Defence without Counterclaim dated 24 September 2025 (the “Defence”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Request for default judgment dated 8 October 2025 (the “Application for Default Judgment”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s submission in response to the Request for default judgment dated 10 October 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-079-2025/1 dated 30 October 2025 seeking the Court’s determination and hearing of the Claimant’s pending Request for default judgment (the “Claimant’s Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Evidence in Answer dated 3 November 2025

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant as a litigant in person held on 8 December 2025 before H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere (the “Hearing”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The service of the Defence on the Claimant by email on 9 October 2025 is deemed effective service.

2. The Claimant’s Application for Default Judgment is dismissed.

3. The Claimant shall have 21 days from the date of this Order to file and serve its reply to the Defence.

4. The case will be listed for a case management conference after the pleadings have closed.

5. Each party shall bear its own costs of the Claimant’s Application.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 December 2025
At: 9am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Summary

1. The Defendant lodged an Acknowledgment of Service and a Defence within the required timeframe on the Courts eRegistry portal, but the Defence was not visible to the Claimant (the “Defence”).

2. The Claimant filed a request for default judgment on the basis that no defence had been filed. The Defendant responded by stating that the Defence had been filed within the time allowed and emailed the Claimant a copy of the defence along with related documents.

3. The Claimant submitted an urgent application for default judgment, arguing that the Defendant’s email did not amount to effective service and that the defence was defective because it had not been properly served. Alternatively, the Claimant requested an extension of time to file a reply to the Defendant’s Defence.

4. For the reasons below, the Court finds that the Defence was filed within the required timeframe, the Defendant’s email constituted effective service, and the Claimant’s Application dismissed.

5. The Court grants the Claimant a 21 day extension from the date of this Order to file and serve its reply to the Defence and orders that each party bear its own costs.

6. The case will proceed to a case management conference after the close of pleadings.

Background

7. The Claimant filed its Claim form and particulars of claim on 21 August 2025 and served them on the Defendant on 27 August 2025.

8. The Defendant filed an acknowledgment of service on 9 September 2025.

9. Pursuant to Rule 16.9(2) of the Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (“RDC”), where an acknowledgment of service is filed, the Defendant must file a defence within 28 days after service of the particulars of claim. Accordingly, the deadline for filing the defence was 24 September 2025.

Filing and service of defence

10. The Defendant lodged a Defence on the Courts eRegistry portal on 23 September 2025, but due to technical difficulties, it was not issued by the Court until the following day, 24 September 20025, which was still within the timeframe allowed under RDC 16.9(2). The Defendant received an acknowledgement from the Registry that the defence had been successfully filed.

11. However, the defence was not visible to the Claimant, and the Claimant was unaware that a Defence had been filed. It appears that the filing was not visible on the portal because it was marked “hidden from others". The Defendant says he did not, or at least did not knowingly, mark the filing “hidden from others”. The defence remained invisible on the eRegistry portal until on or after 9 October 2025.

12. The Defendant did not serve his Defence on the Claimant before 8 October 2025.

Claimant’s request for default judgment

13. The Claimant filed a request for default judgment on 8 October 2025 on the basis that no defence had been filed in accordance with RDC 16.9 (the “Application for Default Judgment”).

14. On 9 October 2025, the Defendant lodged a reply to the Claimant’s Application for Default Judgment (the “Reply to the Application for Default Judgment”), indicating that he had filed his defence within the period specified by the Rules. The Reply to the Application for Default Judgment was available on the eRegistry on 10 October 2025.

15. On 9 October 2025, the Defendant emailed the Claimant a copy of his Reply to the Application and related documents, including his Defence.

Claimant’s application for default judgment or extension of time to file reply

16. On 30 October 2025, the Claimant submitted an urgent application requesting the determination of the Claimant’s Request for Default Judgment, along with directions on the procedural validity of the Defendant’s purported defence and, if considered valid, an extension of 14 days to file a reply to the Defendant’s Defence.

17. The Claimant contends that the Defendant’s email of 9 October 2025 did not constitute effective service of the Defence under RDC 16.13 because it was sent as part of the Defendant’s Reply to Request, rather than as a separate and distinct service of the Defence.

18. The Claimant argues that:

19. The Claimant therefore contends that tit is entitled to default judgment because the Defendant has not filed a defence.

No order for default judgment

20. RDC 13.5 provides that a Claimant may obtain a default judgment "only if the Defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of service or a Defence within the relevant time." The Rule focuses on whether the defence was filed, not whether it was served. No provision in Part 13 permits a default judgment solely based on the late service of a defence, or the defence not being visible on the eRegistry portal.

21. The Defence was filed within the required timeframe under RDC 16.9(2). Even if the Defendant breached RDC 16.13 by not serving the Defence promptly or making the Defence invisible to the Claimant by marking it “hidden from others,” which I do not decide, this does not amount to a failure to file a defence for the purposes of RDC 13.5.

22. Therefore, the Claimant’s Application for Default Judgment cannot succeed.

Service of the defence

23. An additional issue is whether the Defendant’s sending of his Defence by email on 9 October 2025, as part of his Reply to the Claimant’s Application for Default Judgment, constitutes valid service under the Rules of the DIFC Courts

24. RDC Part 9 permits service by electronic means, including email, where the receiving party has indicated willingness to accept service by such means. It is not disputed that the Claimant had provided an email address for service.

25. RDC 16.13 provides that “a copy of the defence must be served on every other party.” The Rule does not prescribe the form in which the defence must be served, only that a copy be served.

26. On 9 October 2025, the Defendant emailed the Claimant a “Reply to the Application for Default Judgment,” to which was attached, and clearly identified, a complete copy of the defence. The Defence was in a separate document, properly headed, and accessible to the Claimant.

27. The Court finds that the Defendant’s email constituted effective service of the Defence under Part 9 and RDC 16.13. The attachment was clearly identifiable as the Defence. The fact that it was transmitted together with and as part of the Defendant’s Reply to the Application for Default Judgment does not invalidate service.

28. Accordingly, the Claimant’s contention that the Defence was not served is rejected. The Defence was served on 9 October 2025.

Claimant’s Alternative Request

29. The Claimant alternatively requests that, if a default judgment is not granted, it be given 21 days from the Court’s order to file its reply to the Defence. The Court finds this request reasonable, considering the delays in service and the confusion caused by the Defence not being visible on the eRegistry portal. Therefore, under RDC 4.2(1) (Court’s general case management powers), the Court will extend the time for the Claimant to file its reply by 21 days from the date of this Order.

Directions

30. The case will be listed for a case management conference after the close of pleadings.

Costs

31. The Defendant did not apply for an order for costs. He is self-represented, and there is no evidence that he has incurred legal costs in relation to the Application.

32. The Claimant acknowledged that it will not be awarded the costs of the Application if it does not succeed in its Application for Default Judgment.

33. The Court notes that the Defendant failed to serve his Defence promptly and that the Defence was not visible on the eRegistry portal, which understandably led the Claimant to believe that no Defence had been filed. However, once the Claimant was informed on 9 October 2025 that a Defence had been filed on 24 September 2025, and was provided with a copy, the Claimant persisted with its Application for Default Judgment. Continuing with the Application in these circumstances was unreasonable and contrary to the duty imposed by RDC Part 1 to assist the Court in furthering the overriding objective, which includes dealing with cases justly, expeditiously, and proportionately.

34. The appropriate order is that each party bears their own costs.

Conclusion and Orders

35. The Court will order: