May 26, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 084/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
CITY STARS TRADING CRUDE OIL AND REFIND PROUDUCTS
Claimant
and
LANGUR HOLDING CORPORATION S.L
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ANDREW MORAN
UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Andrew Moran dated 19 March 2025 (the “CMO”)
AND UPON the Registry issuing a letter to the Claimant on 30 April 2025, requesting formal documentation confirming the authority of Mr Ali Abualhasan to represent the Claimant in these proceedings
AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-084-2024/2 dated 7 May 2025, seeking (i) an order directing the filing of evidence in relation to the status of the Claimant’s representative in these proceedings, Mr Ali Abualhasan; and (ii) variations to the CMO (the “Application”)
AND UPON the Pre-Trial Review listed on 4 November 2025 before H.E. Justice Andrew Moran (the “PTR”)
AND UPON the Trial listed on 25 November 2025 before H.E. Justice Andrew Moran (the “Trial”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Statement of Costs dated 20 May 2025
AND UPON reviewing the parties’ submissions on the Court file
AND UPON reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts ("RDC")
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. By no later than 4pm on 2 June 2025 the Claimant shall produce:
(a) A copy of the stamped copy of any employment contract registered with the Kuwaiti Public Authority for Manpower for Mr Ali Abualhasan; and
(b) Any further employment contracts or formal documents concerning Mr Ali Abualhasan’s employment with the Claimant.
2. If the Claimant complies with paragraph 1 of this Order:
(a) The parties shall file with the Court proposed directions for revised dates for filing witness statements and expert evidence, by no later than 4pm within 7 days of the Claimant’s compliance with paragraph 1, which will be determined by the Court on the papers.
(b) The parties shall make standard production of documents within 7 days of the Claimant’s compliance with paragraph 1.
(c) The parties shall file requests to produce, if any, within 14 days thereafter.
(d) The parties shall file objections to requests to produce within 7 days after exchanging requests to produce.
(e) Where there are no objections to a particular request contained in a request to produce, documents responsive to that request shall be produced within 28 days from the date of the request to produce.
(f) If a party is not satisfied with the objections to any Requests to Produce it may apply to the Court for a Document Production Order immediately using the Part 23 Form (the "Document Production Application"). The usual timelines under RDC Part 23, for progression of such an application, will apply.
(g) Once the Document Production Application is fully progressed, the matter will be put before the Court for determination.
(h) The parties shall comply with the terms of any Disclosure Order and file a Document Production Statement within 14 days from the date of the Order.
3. If the Claimant fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this Order, the claim shall be stayed. Further directions for the PTR and Trial will be determined (if applicable) when any stay has been lifted.
4. The Claimant shall:
(a) provide the Defendant and the Court a detailed explanation of how Ms Dellapa’s email address was corrupted within 7 days of this Order;
(b) correct the issue on its system so that emails from ali.abualhasan@csgpetrol.com are not shown as being from Anna.Dellapa@squirepb.com and confirm to the Defendant and to the Court that this issue has been corrected; and
(c) implement such measures as are necessary to prevent the recurrence of such issues.
5. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this Application, on the standard basis which are assessed in the amount of USD 19,905.03 by 2 June 2025.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 26 May 2025
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Defendant filed the Application for the orders now made above, in circumstances and for reasons fully explained in the Witness Statement of Brian Dayton dated 7 May 2025.
2. The Registry and the Judges of this Court have a very important responsibility under its rules and procedures, to ensure when affording access to justice to those natural and corporate persons who invoke its jurisdiction, that such persons are represented in the proceedings they bring or defend, by persons duly and properly authorised to act as their representatives before the Court. A natural person may of course act in person for him or herself, but a corporate or other legal entity may only conduct proceedings before the Court through an authorised officer, employee, or a legal practitioner registered with the DIFC Courts’ Register of Legal Practitioners.
3. The Court and the Registry may act of their own motion to ensure that such authorisation or right to appear and represent a party is in place, and exercise wide case management powers under the RDC to require satisfactory proof of such authorisation or employment of a person purporting to act for a party, who is not a Registered Practitioner, before allowing such person to conduct litigation before it. Likewise, another party to proceedings is entitled to be satisfied that the person it may be dealing with, purporting to represent an opposing party, is duly authorised to act for that party, so that the party is bound by its representatives’ actions in the conduct of the litigation, and in complying with the RDC and orders of the Court.
4. The Registry, and I as the Judge to whom this case has been allocated for Trial, have become increasingly concerned at the failure of Mr Ali Abualhasan, (who purports to act for and represent the Claimant in these proceedings), and of the Claimant itself (by any other person proved to be one of its officers through whom it may lawfully act under its governing law), to provide any adequate proof of the employment or due authorisation of Mr Ali Abualhasan to act in these legal proceedings on its behalf. This is a fundamental requirement of the administration of justice in these Courts to ensure the integrity of the proceedings and the responsibility of a natural person for the actions and conduct of a non-natural legal person, done in the course of the litigation.
5. The Statement of Mr Dayton evidences in full and complete detail, the grounds for the Court’s concern and fully justifies the Defendant’s reluctance to engage with Mr Ali Abualhasan in the steps required for the progression of the action which the Court has ordered, and the need for the orders it has sought which the Court has made above. It is not necessary for the Court to recount the detail of the Claimant and Mr Ali Abualhasan’s failure to demonstrate the latter’s employment or authority to act for the former.
6. Mr Ali Abualhasan’s response to the Application in his witness statement of 11 May 2025, is utterly woeful in its inadequacy to provide what is required and has repeatedly been sought from him. It is a response which is a mere repetition of previous unvouched and unsupported assertions, which only serves to compound his and the Claimant’s failures to prove employment and/or authorisation of him by the Claimant. It reinforces the concern already engendered, by those dubious and unsatisfactory bald assertions of authority to act, to which the Registry and now the Court has been treated. There is a complete failure to explain or substantiate any employment, role or responsibility. There is an even more disturbing failure to explain how and why it has been the case that he has previously held himself out in these proceedings to be acting as an independent practising lawyer in a law firm, and if and how it comes about that is no longer the case.
7. As for the Defendant’s complaint and concern regarding the apparent manipulation of an email address, and whilst the Court makes no judgment as to what has occurred or how what was found has come about, it is satisfied on the evidence before it, that it is necessary to require the Claimant to provide the explanation that is sought; and to take steps to ensure that such an event never recurs. This is necessary to ensure the integrity of communications between the parties and the Court and the security of a party’s internal communications.
8. The Court is satisfied, for the reasons given above concerning the importance of the requirement to do so, that if the Claimant does not comply with paragraph 1 of its Order it should stay the proceedings until the Claimant does so comply; or until the Claimant secures representation by other means, which is acceptable to the Court. The Court cannot allow proceedings to continue in the face of such conduct and failure on the part of the Claimant.
9. The Defendant has applied for the costs of the Application to be assessed on the standard basis and on 16 May 2025 the Registry directed that its representative should file its Statement of Costs incurred. The Statement was duly filed on 20 May 2025. The Claimant was notified by means of an email sent to Mr Abulhasan that if it wished to dispute the amount of costs claimed, it should do so by no later than 22 May 2025. As no response was received, the Court has proceeded to assess the Defendant’s costs of the application. It finds that the costs claimed were reasonably incurred and are reasonable and proportionate in amount. The Court has therefore decided that it should make an order requiring the Claimant to pay those costs incurred in full, being USD 19,905.03, by 2 June 2025.
10. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate and necessary to make the orders sought in the Application before it and has done so accordingly.
