 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri v (1) Mr Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj (2) Mr John Cameron [2025] DIFC CFI 057 (24 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_057.html Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 057, [2025] DIFC CFI 57 |
||
[New search] [Help]
CFI 057/2021 Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri v (1) Mr Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj (2) Mr John Cameron
April 24, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 057/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
KHALED SALEM MUSABEH HUMAID AL MHEIRI
Claimant
and
(1) MR MOHAMMAD EZELDDINE EL ARAJ
(2) MR JOHN CAMERONDefendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE
UPON the Case Management Order dated 8 July 2024 (the “Case Management Order”)
AND UPON the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-057-2021/15 dated 15 April 2025 for an order for security for costs (the “Application”)
AND UPON hearing counsel for the Claimant and counsel for the Second Defendant at the Pre-Trial Review held before H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie on 15 April 2025 (the “Pre-Trial Review”)
AND PURSUANT TOthe Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application is refused.
2. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the Application on the standard basis, to be summarily assessed in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Order.
3. The Claimant shall file a statement of the costs it seeks to recover under paragraph 2 of this Order by4pm on Friday 25 April 2025, the Second Defendant shall file its submissions, if any, concerning that statement of costs by4pm on Monday 28 April2025 and the Court will thereafter decide upon the appropriate figure on paper and without any further submissions by either party.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 24 April 2025
At: 11amSCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The trial of this matter is listed for Monday, 28 April 2025, with an estimate duration of three days.
2. The Second Defendant, Mr Cameron, filed Application No.CFI-057-2021/15 dated 15 April 2025, , applying for an Order in the following terms:
“1. Mr Almheiri shall, within 7 days of the date of the Order, provide security for Mr Cameron’s costs in the sum of USD 945,000 by way of payment into Court, or alternatively by way of security in any other form agreed by Mr Cameron (although Mr Cameron shall have no obligation to accept security in an alternative form). For the avoidance of doubt, security provided by way of payment into Court must be received by the relevant account within such deadline.
2. If Mr Almheiri fails to provide security in accordance with paragraph 1 above then, without further order, the claim against Mr Cameron shall be struck out and there shall be judgment for Mr Cameron with costs of the claim to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed.”
3. That application was said to be made under RDC Rule 25.102(6) which provides that an order for security for costs may be made where the claimant “has taken steps in relation to his assets” that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him.
4. The application was supported by a witness statement from Mr Nils de Wolff. As part of the background to the application Mr de Wolff explained that the Claimant, Mr Almheiri, was a former director of a company called Marka PJSC (“Marka”) and that in a series of judgments from about October 2021 the Dubai Courts had held Mr Almheiri liable for all or perhaps 50% of Marka’s debts in a sum in excess of AED 265 million. The matter was presently before the Dubai Court of Appeal which was expected to give judgment on 15 April 2025. It was said that this exposure to personal liability meant that Mr Almheiri “remains incentivised” to organise his affairs to evade any potential liability.
5. Against that background it is said that Mr Almheiri has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order of the court for costs against him and that it would be just having regard to all the circumstances of the case to make such an order. Reliance is placed (i) upon his potential indebtedness arising from the Marka litigation, (ii) the fact that, so it is said, Mr Almheiri has switched from issuing cheques from his personal accounts to issuing cheques from third parties or managers’ cheques and (iii) the transfer of a company called EVL which, it is said, was made with a view to evading payment of the judgment debt arising from the Marka litigation.
6. I am now told that the Dubai Court of Appeal did indeed give judgment on 15 April 2025. It remitted the matter to a new tribunal for reconsideration. To my mind that neutralises any suggested inference from Mr Almheiri’s potential indebtedness in that litigation. It is too early to tell what the outcome will be. It also takes the sting out of any reference to the EVL transfer.
7. There is no legitimate inference to be drawn from the use of third party or managers’ cheques. There may be good reasons, but in any case it is difficult to see how the use of such cheques amounts to the taking of steps in relation to his assets making it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him.
8. The application is for security for costs in an amount just short of USD 1 million, covering past costs as well as cost to be incurred from here on in. I regard this as oppressive, coming so late in the day. It might be thought to be an attempt to stifle Mr Almheiri’s claim. But whether that is so or not, the lateness of the application goes to the question of whether it is just to make such an order. Had I been of the view that the case fell within RDC Rule 25.102(6), I would have refused to make an order in respect of past costs.
9. Mr Almheiri says that he has financial resources to satisfy any costs order in favour of Mr Cameron. I cannot decide on this point. But it is for Mr Cameron to establish that the case falls within Rule 25.102(6). Mr Almheiri is not required to prove that he has sufficient resources unless it is first established that the case falls within the Rule.
10. In all the circumstances I refuse the application. The Second Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of the Application on the standard basis to be assessed in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Order.