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 Order of H.E. Justice Andrew Moran dated 26 May 2025 (the “Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s letter application dated 9 June 2025 to amend the Order (the “Amendment Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s response to the Amendment Application dated 19 June 2025, and its applications in the second witness statement of Mr Ali Abualhasan

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Order shall be varied to order as follows:

2. Paragraph 3 of the Order shall be varied to order as follows:

3. There shall be permission to both Parties to apply for a lifting of the stay or further orders or directions, upon the Claimant’s compliance with the varied order in paragraph 1 hereof, or expiry of the time limit for compliance with it.

Issued by
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 23 June 2025
At: 1pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. In its reasons of the Order, the Court explained in detail the need for the status and position of a corporate party’s legal representative to be properly established before the Court. There is no need for it to expand upon those reasons which are clear and comprehensible. The Court therefore rejects Mr Abualhasan’s complaints in his second witness statement about a lack of reasoning in the Court’s decisions.

2. The Defendant’s application by letter of 8 June 2025 (the “Amendment Application”), advances yet further grounds for the Court to be dubious of Mr Abualhasan’s status as an employed lawyer of the Claimant before 30 May 2025, when it appears the contract of employment, he presents to prove his employment, was created - although it bears a date on its face of 2 October 2024. This discrepancy is misleading and unexplained by the Claimant or Mr Abualhasan. The Court considers that the Defendant’s suggestion that the timing of creation of the contract and its wording suggests that the role may not be a genuine in-house position but rather a mechanism to allow Mr Abualhasan to appear before the Court without holding the requisite credentials, is a reasonable one.

3. Neither of those grounds has been addressed or contradicted in the second statement of Mr Abualhasan. His statement, by what it contains and does not contain, leaves the Court with a clear impression that the contract has been concluded for the purpose suggested by the Defendant. In those circumstances, whilst it may be the case that there is now a contract of employment between the Claimant and Mr Abualhasan, the Court is satisfied, that to ensure as far as it can the integrity of the proceedings, that employment should be shown to be registered and regulated in the Emirate of Dubai, where the Claimant has its corporate seat. That requirement arises for all of the reasons the Court explained in the Order. The Defendant is correct in its assertion at paragraph 5(a) of the Application, that the intent of paragraph 1 of the Order, was to obtain official, and independently certifiable records of employment, which it now seems can be provided by MOHRE, if and when the Claimant proceeds to obtain them.

4. The Claimant’s evidence from Mr Abualhasan in support of the Amendment Application, is, in paragraphs 1-3 of his second witness statement, entirely irrelevant to the matter in issue, which is whether there was or now is, a genuine employment relationship as an in-house lawyer that can be confirmed by his registration and regulation in Dubai, acting in that role for the Claimant. Paragraph 4 of that statement is incorrect as the Claimant has not so far satisfied the Registry or the Court that there was or is a genuine employment relationship of Mr Abualhasan as an in-house lawyer. The Court has already held, in paragraph 6 of its reasons for the Order, that in all the circumstances of the case, the documents referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement do not satisfy it that there was or is the required employment relationship. In the Court’s judgment, what the Defendant sought and now seeks by variation, to substantiate the employment relationship contended for, is required for all of the reasons the Court articulated concerning party representation before these Courts, in its Order and reasons of 26 May 2025. There is no question of the Court merely acceding to the Defendant’s requests without reasons, or exceeding its powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts and Mr Abualhasan’s suggestions to the contrary in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of his second statement are rejected in their entirety. The court holds, contrary to the submissions in paragraph 9 of that statement, that it (and the Defendant) is entitled to require proof of employment to the extent it considers necessary in the particular circumstances of this case. The aspects of the inquiry complained about, all go to the genuineness of the employment relationship, which may be augmented by the registration with, and regulation by the employment authorities in the Emirate of Dubai. The fact that Mr Abualhasan is a citizen of a GCC country is not to the point; and the Court accepts the Defendant’s assertions in paragraph 3(c) of its Amendment Application in that respect. Mr Abualhasan has not demonstrated anything to the contrary, beyond bald assertions. The Court does not accept the Claimant’s submissions in paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of his statement. The Court’s requirements as to what is required for a natural person to appear before it and represent a corporate entity are not limited by the matters there relied upon and as already made clear, what has been produced by the Claimant to prove employment of Mr Abualhasan, has been variously misleading, unsatisfactory and unconvincing thus far. The Claimant now expresses its willingness to comply with the necessary procedures with the relevant authority to register Mr Abualhasan’s employment status with the relevant authority (a clear admission that it has not so far done so) but says that it needs time to do so. The Court will give it a reasonable period within which to do so, but in the meantime, this action will not be allowed to proceed with Mr Abualhasan acting as the Claimant’s legal representative. The Court will re-consider the position upon any application being made by either party as herein provided for.

5. The Court has therefore re-considered its decision and the Order. It finds that it was necessarily and properly made for good reasons it has fully explained, on the information then before it. Based on the information and evidence now placed before it, it considers that the Order should be amended in the manner requested by the Defendant in its Amendment Application. The Claimant’s requests are otherwise denied and rejected.