November 10, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 081/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
KITOPI CATERING SERVICES LLC
Claimant/Defendant in Counterclaim
and
MONS HOSPITALITY FZE
Defendant/Claimant in Counterclaim
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART KC
UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 26 March 2025 (the “Court Order”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-081-2024/5 dated 31 October 2025 seeking a one-week extension to file and serve its supplemental reply expert report and to extend the current deadline in the Court Order from 7 November to 14 November 2025 (the “Application”)
AND UPON reviewing all documents filed in support of the application
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application is granted.
2. The time for service of the Claimant’s expert report is extended to 14 November 2025.
3. The parties’ appointed experts shall file a joint report confirming those matters which are agreed or not agreed relating to their expert discipline by no later than 4pm (GST) on 28 November 2025.
4. Costs shall be costs in the case
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 10 November 2025
At: 9am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an application by the Claimant for a one week extension of time for service of its expert report replying to the Defendant’s expert report. The Defendant is prepared to consent but only on the basis that is granted the opportunity to serve a reply report.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant is seeking to take procedural advantage of its position and that no liaison took place prior to the request.
3. I consider that the modest extension of time should be granted. There is no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a proper application for a relatively small extension. There is no basis to permit the Defendant to put in a reply report. The time for the joint statement will be extended by one week as well.
4. The costs will be in the case as I consider that the Claimant should have sought the agreement of the Defendant to the extension, but the Defendant should have consented rather than seeking to impose conditions.
