Claim No: CFI 092/2024

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MAG DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LIMITED

Claimant

and

(1) THE COLLECTION CLUB RESTAURANT LIMITED
(2) LAURENT BUISINE
(3) HUGO VALAT

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK KC

UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-092-2024/6 dated 12 December 2025, seeking a document production order (the “Defendants’ Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-092-2024/7 dated 18 December 2025, seeking a document production order (the “Claimant’s Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Defendants’ Application dated 19 December 2025

AND UPON the Defendants’ evidence in answer to the Claimant’s Application dated 19 December 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s evidence in reply to the Claimant's Application dated 26 December 2025

AND UPON the Defendants’ evidence in reply to the Defendants’ Application dated 29 December 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. On the Defendants’ Application

2. On the Claimant's application

3. Costs shall be in the case.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 19 January 2026
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

1. There are before me two applications under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) 28.36 for Document Production Orders.

2. The earlier in time is that made by the Defendants on 12 December 2025. The Claimant made its application on 18 December 2025.

3. In brief summary:

4. The principles governing the making of Document Production Orders are set out at RDC 28.36 namely that:

5. The permissible grounds for objection to production are set out at RDC 28.28:

6. RDC 28.60 and 28.61 set out the consequence of failure to produce documents:

THE DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION

7. The Defendants make application in respect to 3 of their Requests to Produce:

Request No. 2

8. The Claimant responded that there was no objection but stated:

9. The Defendants submit that the documents are essential as the Claimant is requesting AED 2,000,000.00 for the costs of reinstating the Premises to their original condition for the Defendants' use and there is no reason why the documents should be disclosed at the witness evidence stage rather than now.

10. In its evidence in response to the application the Claimant now says that there are no such invoices in existence.

11. The burden of proving its case rests on the Claimant and the adequacy of its evidence is a matter for trial.

12. No order is required.

Request No. 3

13. The Claimant responded:

14. The Defendants submit that the Request is a reasonable request so that the Defendants can understand how the amount of AED 2,000,000 listed as Item 1 in the Claim is justified. This is the amount set out in the settlement agreement between Red Rose Restaurant and the Claimant.

15. The Claimant maintains its objection to production on the following grounds:

16. The Defendants deny that this is a “fishing expedition” but a reasonable request so that the Defendants can understand how the amount of AED 2,000,000 listed as Item 1 in the Claim is justified. This is the amount set out in the settlement agreement between Red Rose Restaurant and the Claimant. They submit that it is not enough to indicate that it is the “cost to terminate the prior lease” as the litigation arose from this “termination” that resulted in the settlement wherein the Claimant, had to indemnify Red Rose Restaurant.

17. The claim by a landlord for the costs paid to a previous tenant before the grant of a lease to the tenant is a surprising one. If it is to be pursued the Defendants are entitled to the information showing the basis on which the sum claimed in the Consent Order was calculated. I consider that the initial claim connected to the Consent Order is therefore relevant and should be disclosed.

Request No.4

18. The Claimant says, “[t]he Claimant has no such report in its possession, but is making enquiries … No objection, but not in the Claimant’s possession.”

19. The Defendants say that the report is mentioned by Louai Al Sabouni in correspondence with the Defendants in answer to the measures that would be taken to secure the premises relatively to the water floors exposure. It is suggested that the Court should not accept, without inquiry, the Claimant’s explanation about this document.

20. The Claimant says that it made enquires with Strata Global as it did not have a copy of the report. It notes that the correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendants does not confirm the existence of any such report, it does not state that the Claimant has such a "study" or "report" in its possession it states merely that Strata Global had commenced a study. The Claimant's enquiries with Strata Global, and the resulting document production, were made in good faith and in accordance with the Claimant's continuing obligation to produce documents in accordance with RDC 28.45.

21. The Defendants criticise the enquiries made of Strata Global and its response. They say that the issue plays a key role in the case; it impacted the approach of the investors. This “study” is key to the submissions of the Claimant that they did everything to address the Defendants’ and their investors’ concerns on avoiding future flood damage. The “study” covers a key issue in these proceedings; it is therefore expected from the Claimant to make sure all enquiries have been made. If the Claimant’s position is that no such report exists, then the Court will be left questioning the reasons why such an email was written.

22. In my judgment this is a matter for trial. If it appears that the enquiries were inadequate and that study does exist and it should have been disclosed the Defendants will be able to seek inferences under RDC 28.61.

23. No order is required.

THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION

24. The Claimant makes application in respect to 5 of its Requests to Produce:

25. In their response to the Claimant’s application the Defendants raise what they allege to be “recent issues with the Claimant relating to compliance”. I regard these to be irrelevant for present purposes.

Requests Nos. 5 and 6

26. The Claimant submits that the Second and Third Defendants’ financial circumstances are relevant for the purposes of assessing the Defendants' financial difficulties, given the Defendants' inability to fulfil their rental payment obligations pre-dated and had nothing to do with the Dubai floods. This is clear from the fact of their failure to pay the second quarterly rental payment – which fell due on 15 March 2024 a whole month before the Dubai floods even took place on 16 April 2024.

27. The Defendants submit that the Second and Third Defendants’ personal financial situations have no relevance to this case. The documents sought are not relevant to the issues in dispute as defined by the pleadings. The purpose of disclosure is not to be used to gather documents missing to strengthen the position of an opposing party. If the Second and Third Defendants were proper parties to the Lease, those financial details should have been collected at the time of the signature of the Lease and not during disclosure in subsequent litigation.

28. In answer the Claimant says:

29. In their Amended Defence the Defendants plead that it was agreed between the Second and Third Defendants and the Claimant that once the First Defendant had secured its Trade Licence the Lease would be amended to be exclusively with the First Defendant.

30. They go on to plead that “[t]he Defendants’ business faced severe financial difficulties due to unforeseen circumstances, including the loss of primary investors cause by the terrible floodings that occurred during Spring 2024” and “The financial hardship arising from this natural disaster constitutes a force majeure event, which made it impossible for the Defendants to fulfil its contractual obligations.”

31. Assuming that there is any validity of the plea of force majeure the burden of proving the same would rest on the Defendants. Assuming that the Second and Third Defendants remain parties to the litigation they would be obliged to prove that the flood caused each of them financial hardship that made it impossible for them to fulfil their contractual obligations.

32. I agree with the Defendants that “[t]he purpose of disclosure is not to be used to gather documents missing to strengthen the position of an opposing party.” If the Defendants have not produced documents sufficient to support their case and their position is that the financial situations of the Second and Third Defendants are irrelevant, they are entitled run their case as they wish and bear the consequences.

33. I make no order.

Request No. 11

34. The Claimant notes that the Defendants have provided no basis for objecting to Request 11, other than to state, "[t]he payment of the Fourth quarterly rental [payment] is a disputed point." This, it is said, is why the Claimant has sought documents relating to the fourth quarterly rental payment under Request 11. This issue has been recorded as a significant issue for determination in the List of Issues, which has been agreed to by the Defendants. The Defendants' objection to produce in respect of Request 11 is an attempt to deprive the Claimant of documents relevant to its case.

35. The Defendants say they have indicated that these documents are not in their possession because the documents do not exist.

36. In response the Claimant observes that the Defendants assert that the documents are not in their possession, "because the documents do not exist" but the Defendants' original objection was that the documents pertain to a "disputed point" – which supports the Claimant's case that these documents are relevant. The Claimant submits that the Defendants are therefore providing conflicting answers – which begs the question as to whether or not the Defendants even searched for any documents responsive to this request, let alone carried out a reasonable search in accordance with RDC 28.36(1).

37. The Claimant says that the Defendants' objection to produce in respect of Request 11 is an attempt to deprive the Claimant of documents relevant to its case. Even if the documents did exist and could be found on a reasonable search, they are not documents relevant to the Claimant’s case. They are documents relevant the Defendants’ pleas of financial hardship and my observations at paragraph 32 above apply.

38. In the event, the Defendants say no such documents exist. If at trial the Court considers this to be wrong the Claimant will be able to seek inferences under RDC 28.61.

39. No order is required.

Request No. 13

40. The Claimant notes that the Defendants' basis for objecting to produce documents in respect of Request No. 13 is that it is allegedly, "[i]rrelevant here the only communications regarding the amended tenancy agreement is whith [sic.] the Claimant." The Defendants also state that the documents, "[do]not exist " – presumably because, as the Defendants wrongly assume, they are allegedly in the Claimant's possession already.

41. The Claimant submits that the Defendants have fundamentally misunderstood the scope of this request, and the documents sought by it. The Claimant is not seeking documents already in its possession. The Claimant is seeking documents, "between the Defendants" – that is, internally between any combination of the First Defendant and / or Second Defendant and/or Third Defendant. The Claimant is not privy to such documents, which is why it has sought them in this Request No. 13. The Defendants assert that the documents are "irrelevant" – however, this is nothing more than an empty statement. The Defendants make no attempt to justify their position – which in any event is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of this request, and the documents sought by it.

42. The Defendants submit that, as stated in the Immediate Judgment Application, the Parties behaved as if the Lease was amended as the condition for amendment was fulfilled in September 2023 with the assistance of the Claimant. The Claimant set up the license for the Defendants in offering to acquire the license held by an existing restaurant, in their towers, that was closing. As further explained, the Claimant provided the Defendants with the login and password for the DIFC Company’s portal access. This point has been fully covered and answered, and it would be unreasonable to expect production of evidence that does not exist.

43. In response the Claimant says that it explained that the Defendants have fundamentally misunderstood the scope of this request, and the documents sought by it. The Claimant is not seeking documents already in its possession. The Claimant is seeking documents, "between the Defendants". In the Answer, the Defendants' only response to this is that, "This has been explained in some detail during the Immediate judgment submissions and during the extension of time application relating to the document production requests of the Defendants." The Claimant suggests that quite what it is that has purportedly been "explained in some detail" is unclear. The Defendants have, in fact, offered no such explanation. Accordingly, the Claimant maintains that the Defendants have misunderstood the scope of this request and the documents sought by it.

44. The pleaded defence is that,

45. The email of 16 (not 15) August 2023 states:

46. The Claimant replied on 17 August 2023:

47. I cannot see how all internal communications between the Defendants (including emails, WhatsApp messages, SMS messages and/or any other instant messages) dated between 15 August 2023 and 24 June 2024 will assist the Court in its understanding of the Claimant’s email of 17 August 2023.

48. The request is refused.

Request No. 17

49. The Claimant points out that the Defendants have objected to this request on the basis that, allegedly, "[a]ll the exchanges between MAG (the Claimant) and the Defendants and/or its investors are in their possession." However, the Claimant seeks, in this request, 'all documents evidencing that MAG refused "to take measures to ensure the safety of the premises against floods".' This includes any electronic documents, including email and other electronic communications (such as WhatsApp messages, SMS messages and / or any other instant messages), word processed documents and databases as exchanged internally between any combination of the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant and/or Third Defendant.

50. The Claimant emphasizes that a cornerstone of the Defendants' case is the allegation that the Claimant offered no support to address the issues caused by the Dubai floods. It is therefore, it is said, quite remarkable that the Defendants assert, in effect, that there are no internal exchanges relating to this issue and that all documents are already in the Claimant's possession.

51. In any event, the Claimant submits, the Defendants do not properly assert that the documents are not within their control and possession. They do not answer the question that the Claimant has provided two obvious and undeniable examples of how the Defendants' position is contradicted by their own evidence.

52. The Defendants say that they have already provided documents in their possession to answer the Claimant’s disclosure request. The Defendants could not provide more information than that which is in their possession and in respect of which they have taken care to look for. The Defence particulars refer to “Strata Global has commenced study to identify preventative measures to shield us from the impact of unforeseen weather events including those resulting from climate change.” This document is subject to request number 4 addressed by the Defendants to the Claimant in their application for an order to produce documents; the Claimant has failed to disclose documents referenced in the proceedings and used to support their position in the dispute they cannot reasonably ask the Defendants to provide additional documents while they have not complied with their obligations.

53. The Claimant disputes that the Defendants have already provided documents in their possession to answer the Claimant’s disclosure request. It suggests that it makes no sense to link this request with the Defendants’ request No. 4.

54. Once again, this concerns an issue where the burden of proof rests with the Defendants. The adequacy of the Defendants’ evidence is a matter for trial. I am reinforced in this view by the reference to two emails that the Claimant says contradict the Defendants’ position demonstrating that the request is more in the nature of cross-examination than for production of documents.

55. The request is dismissed.

DISPOSITION

56. I make the following orders:

57. As to costs, both applications are paradigm interlocutory applications and therefore I order that the costs shall be costs in the case.