[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Melvin Stanley Parekkat v (1) Shahab Ahmad Mohamed Ayoub Alshehhi (2) The Coins Restaurant & Coffee Shop Ltd [2024] DIFC CFI 045 (20 February 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DCFI_045.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC CFI 45, [2024] DIFC CFI 045

[New search] [Help]

CFI 045/2023 Melvin Stanley Parekkat v (1) Shahab Ahmad Mohamed Ayoub Alshehhi (2) The Coins Restaurant & Coffee Shop Ltd

February 20, 2024 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ORDERS

Claim No. CFI 045/2023

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MELVIN STANLEY PAREKKAT

Claimant

and

(1) SHAHAB AHMAD MOHAMED AYOUB ALSHEHHI
(2) THE COINS RESTAURANT & COFFEE SHOP LTD

Defendants

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE ANDREW MORAN

---

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 4 July 2023

AND UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 6 December 2023 (the “CM Order”)

AND UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-045-2023/2 dated 18 January 2024 seeking an extension of time to submit the Counterclaim and to make standard production (the “Application”)

AND UPON reviewing all relevant material added on to the Court file

AND UPON reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

IT HEREBY ORDERED THATthe Application is refused.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 20 February 2024
At: 8am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Defendants have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the requirement for an extension for time to file a counterclaim and make standard disclosure in support of it.

2. They have failed to provide even an outline of the counterclaim that they belatedly wish to raise.

3. Matters of complaint concerning the Claimant’s allegedly prejudicial conduct in relation to the management and operation of the Second Defendant, were extensively articulated in the defence. It is obvious that these matters might have formed the basis of a counterclaim, so that it appears that a conscious decision was taken not to raise one.

4. This decision not to raise a counterclaim, was in the presence of (i) the Judge’s agreement with the Claimant that the dispute required expeditious determination; and (ii) his case management order requiring the Defendants to file a counterclaim (if they intended to bring one), by a certain date, to achieve that particular objective and satisfy the overriding objective.

5. The consequence of now allowing the bringing of a counterclaim, delayed disclosure and the consequential revised directions that granting the application would entrain and require, would unacceptably delay and disrupt the current proceedings and put the hearing dates in jeopardy.

6. I am satisfied that the balance of fairness and efficiency to be struck in order to achieve the overriding objective in this case, tilts clearly in favour of rejecting this late-coming and unjustified Application.

7. I therefore refuse the Application.