Claim No. SCT 046/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of Dubai
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 20 March 2023 and 24 April 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 10 March 2023 (the “Permission Application”)
AND UPON hearing the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative at a hearing on 18 April 2023
AND UPON reviewing Rule 53.91 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Permission Application is granted.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Date of issue: 2 May 2023
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Defendant in this Claim, against the Judgment of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 10 March 2023 in this matter (the “Judgment”). The Appeal Notice dated 20 March 2023 and 24 April 2023 sets out the Defendant’s request for an oral hearing to determine permission to appeal against the Judgment, which was duly held before me, in the presence of the Claimant, on 18 April 2023 (the “Permission Hearing”).
2. The background of this Claim is relevantly set out in the Judgment and need not be repeated in the course of this Order.
3. In accordance with RDC 53.91, permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Appeal Notice filed by the Defendant, I find that the Appeal does meet the requirements under RDC 53.91. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. The Defendant filed its appeal on the grounds that the SCT Judge erred in reaching his decision in relation to calculating public holidays.
6. In review of the Judgment and the documents recorded on the Court file, it appears that the Defendant may have a real prospect of success in an appeal against the Judgment.
7. Therefore, the Appeal satisfies the requirements of RDC 53.91 and must be granted henceforth.
8. Each party shall bear their own costs.