[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Franklin Morgan Legal Advisory LLC v ISA Abdulla Haider Obaid Bin Haider [2024] DIFC CFI 069 (19 November 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DCFI_069.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC CFI 69, [2024] DIFC CFI 069

[New search] [Help]

CFI 069/2023 Franklin Morgan Legal Advisory LLC v ISA Abdulla Haider Obaid Bin Haider

November 19, 2024 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ORDERS

Claim No. CFI 069/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

FRANKLIN MORGAN LEGAL ADVISORY LLC

Claimant

and

ISA ABDULLA HAIDER OBAID BIN HAIDER

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK KC

---

UPON the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim Form dated 21 September 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-069-2023/1 dated 20 October 2023 (the “Application”)

AND UPON a hearing listed before Justice Michael Black KC on 7 November 2024 to determine the Application (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s email correspondence to the Registry dated 23 and 30 October 2024

AND UPON the Order of Justice Michael Black KC dated 31 October 2024

AND PURSUANT TOthe Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall resubmit the Schedule of Costs limiting the claims in respect to the two fee earners (Fee Earner No.9 and Fee Earner No.10) to the Indicative Rates, by no later than4pm (GST) on 25 November 2024 (“the Amended Schedule of Costs”).

2. There shall be judgment against FMLA in the amount of the Amended Schedule of Costs.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 19 November 2024
At: 11am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. On 31 October 2024, I dismissed this Claim and directed that the parties file and serve written submissions on costs.

2. The facts of the matter are extraordinary. On 28 July 2023, the Claimant (“FMLA”), purporting to act as DIFC Registered Legal Practitioners through one Shaun Morgan initiated proceedings against the Defendant (Mr Bin Haider), the principal of the law firm Bin Haider & Associates Legal Consultants, alleging on behalf of one Karl Sebastian Greenwood (insofar as it is possible to understand the Claim) that the sum of AED 85,853,713.55 was allegedly illegally retained by Bin Haider & Associates and belonged to Mr Greenwood.

3. On 21 September 2023, FMLA issued these proceedings against Mr Bin Haider. The Part 8 Claim Form referred to the Claim by Mr Greenwood against Mr Bin Haider and sought that this Court make an order against the Dubai Police disclosing a copy of a complaint for harassment filed by Mr Bin Haider against one Hatem Saeed Al Amoud who purported to be a partner in FMLA. The Claim Form was verified by a Statement of Truth signed by Shaun Morgan.

4. Acting on representations made by several law firms representing respondents to claims brought by FMLA, the Registrar of the Courts, in the exercise of her powers under the Mandatory Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners in the DIFC Courts (the “Code”), made application to the Court against FMLA and Shaun Mogan. The matter came before Justice Wayne Martin (as he then was). Justice Martin found in a careful, lengthy and detailed judgment that Shaun Morgan’s conduct gave rise to the following contraventions of the Code

(1) Article 6 – not dealing with the Court honestly and with integrity;

(2) Article 9(A) – knowingly making an incorrect or misleading statement of fact to the Court and failing to correct any material incorrect or misleading statement of fact at the earliest opportunity;

(3) Article 22(J) – engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and deliberate misrepresentation;

(4) Article 23 – acting in a matter before the Court without being satisfied of his continuing adherence to the DIFC Court’s registration criteria; and

(5) Article 24 – failing to abstain from behaviour which may tend to discredit the Court and the reputation of its practitioners.

5. Justice Martin described Shaun Morgan as“a charlatan who has not established an entitlement to practice law in any jurisdiction. He is dishonest, completely lacking in integrity, and a fraudster. In these circumstances the only appropriate remedy under each of Articles 38 and 40 is to direct his removal from the Register of Practitioners.”Justice Martin also imposed a fine.

6. As to FMLA, he found that“FMLA assisted Mr Morgan in the perpetration of his attempts to deceive the Court and the clients of the firm. In circumstances in which the firm must have been aware that there was a serious question in relation to Mr Morgan’s entitlement to be registered as a practitioner, the firm reiterated his false assertions dogmatically, without any proper basis for doing so. Further, the firm provided forged and fraudulent documents to the Court without making any enquiry whatever as to their veracity, when clearly such enquiry was called for.”He removed the firm from the Register of firms permitted to represent parties before the Courts and imposed a public admonition and the maximum fine.

7. Shaun Morgan and FMLA appealed. On 17 September 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Shaun Morgan but allowed the appeal of FMLA in part in that it reduced the amount of the fine.

8. I am informed by the Defendant’s Legal Representatives that a purported new law firm was instructed to appear on behalf of the Claimant in this Claim, and for Mr Greenwood, namely Engy Nabil Law Firm. They understand that Engy Nabil Law Firm withdrew from legal representation in the proceedings on 29 October 2024. I cannot see any application for change of legal representation on the Court file in either case but in the light of the manner that these claims have been conducted by FMLA I have no reason to doubt the Defendant’s Legal Representatives.

9. Meanwhile, by emails dated 23 and 30 October 2024, FMLA consented to the dismissal of both this Claim and that on behalf of the Karl Greenwood. I am not sure that FMLA having been struck off were entitled to consent to the dismissal of the Greenwood claim but in the present Claim they are Claimant and therefore they were clearly entitled to abandon their Claim.

10. In compliance with my direction, the Defendant served submissions on costs. The Defendant seeks his costs of the proceedings. He relies on Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”), RDC 34.15 which provides:

Unless the Court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues a claim is liable for the defendant’s costs incurred up to and on the date on which notice of the discontinuance was served on him or his legal representative.

11. I see no reason to depart from that rule and none is advanced by FMLA.

12. The Defendant has served an itemised Schedule of Costs evidencing a sum of AED 440,120. The Defendant asks for an Immediate Assessment. I am satisfied that an Immediate Assessment is appropriate. I have reviewed the Schedule in the context of the Court file and I find the costs reasonable, reasonably incurred and proportionate subject to two minor points – the rates charged for two fee earners slightly exceed the rates in Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023 – Indicative Hourly Legal Charges. The rate charged for Fee Earner No. 9 is AED 2,480 per hour whereas the Indicative Rate is AED 2,391 and for Fee Earner No. 10 the respective figures are AED 1,695 and AED 1,450. All other rates are within the Indicative Rates.

13. The Defendant is therefore directed to resubmit the Schedule of Costs limiting the claims in respect of those two fee earners to the Indicative Rates. I will approve the costs in the relevant amount and judgment will be issued against FMLA for that sum.

14. FMLA also put in submissions, predictably, out of time. They are breathtaking in their audacity and worth quoting in full:

A. INTRODUCTION
This is a request for the reimbursement of the amounts paid for the costs incurred in this case, including expenses, fees, and charges paid by Franklin Morgan Office.

B. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
-The claim was merely a request to the court to issue a communication to the Dubai Police Station for the purpose of inquiring about a submitted report -THE CASE WAS DISMISSED.

C. COSTS TO BE SUMMARLY [sic] ASSESSED
Based on the proceedings that took place in the above-mentioned case, the office hereby requests reimbursement of the amounts paid in connection with the proceedings of this claim, which has been resolved. A total amount of 621,420 has been paid, which includes fees, expenses, and legal costs.

15. Needless to say, no supporting documents were provided, and I have no hesitation in rejecting the request as being manifestly without merit.