[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Aptiva Technologies FZE v Liberty Steel Group Holdings (EMEA) Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 076 (12 May 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_076.html Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 76, [2025] DIFC CFI 076

[New search] [Help]

CFI 076/2024 Aptiva Technologies FZE v Liberty Steel Group Holdings (EMEA) Ltd

May 12, 2025 court of first instance - Orders

Claim No. CFI 076/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

APTIVA TECHNOLOGIES FZE

Claimant

and

LIBERTY STEEL GROUP HOLDINGS (EMEA) LTD

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

---

UPON the Claimant filing its Claim Form on 24 October 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendant filing an Acknowledgement of Service on 11 November 2024 with an intention to defend the Claim

AND UPON the Claimant filing its Particulars of Claim on 12 February 2025 (the “Particulars of Claim”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-076-2024/1 dated 18 April 2025 requesting permission to amend its Particulars of Claim (the “Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant filing an Amended Claim Form on 29 April 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is granted.

2. There shall be no order as to costs of the Application.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 12 May 2025
At: 2pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant filed a Claim under number CFI-076-2024 which was issued on 24 October 2024. On 18 April 2025, the Claimant sought permission of the Court to amend the Particulars of Claim pursuant to Rules 18.2(2) and 18.9 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”).

The Claimants’ Submissions

2. The Claimant seeks permission from the DIFC Courts under RDC 18.9 to amend the Statement of Facts and enhance the claim amount. The proposed amendments arise from the same factual matrix as originally pleaded and have already been referenced as part of the relief sought in the original Claim.

3. The Claimant seeks to increase the claim amount to USD 476,768.68, which represents the total value of the quotation, invoice, and Purchase Order issued by the Defendant. The amended amount reflects the cost of a three-year software licence which has been fully paid by the Claimant to the vendor, OpenText.

4. While the original Claim covered only the first year’s invoice, the Claimant asserts it is now evident that the Defendant has no intention of paying for any part of the three-year licence. Consequently, the Claimant seeks to recover the full amount of USD 476,768.68, inclusive of VAT, and submits that this amendment is justified by the Defendant’s breach of agreed payment terms.

5. The Claimant therefore requests the Court’s permission to amend the Statement of Facts and Statement of Case to reflect the total invoiced sum, representing the full financial obligation incurred and discharged by the Claimant on the Defendant’s behalf.

Finding

6. The applicable test under RDC 18.2(2) requires that the proposed amendment be properly pleaded and demonstrate a real prospect of success.

7. The Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s proposed amendments meet these criteria. The amendments are clearly and properly pleaded, and they demonstrate a real prospect of success.

8. In exercising the Court’s discretion under the overriding objective, the Court notes that permission to amend must balance fairness with procedural efficiency. The Court must assess whether denying the amendment would result in injustice to the Claimant and whether allowing it would cause prejudice to the Defendant.

9. The proceedings remain at an early stage. No Defence has been filed, and the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) has not yet been scheduled. Accordingly, the Defendant will not suffer procedural prejudice if the amendment is permitted at this stage.

10. The Court notes that the application was made promptly and that the amendments are straightforward. Given that no procedural milestones will be affected and the proposed amendments are meritorious, the Court grants permission for the Claimant to amend the Particulars of Claim.

Costs

11. Although the Court does grant the Application, the claim for unjust enrichment could have been pleaded in the first Particulars of Claim. In not doing so, the Application has resulted in wasted costs and efforts.

12. RDC 18.27 states that a party seeking to amend is responsible for the costs of and arising from the amendment:

“A party applying for an amendment will usually be responsible for the costs of and arising from the amendment, but the Court will have regard to any failure of a party to consent to an amendment in accordance with Rule 18.12.”

13. Although the Court finds that the Application is granted for the reasons above. There shall be no order as to costs, as the Defendant has not filed a Defence to date.