Claim No. CFI 043/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) WILLIAM ALLAN JONES
(2) COFFEE PLANET LLC
(3) COFFEE PLANET ROASTERY FZE
Applicant/Claimants
and
ROBERT ANTHONY JONES
Respondent/Defendant
RULING ON APPLICATON FOR WORLDWIDE FREEZING ORDER OF JUSTICE ROBERT FRENCH
PENAL NOTICE
IF YOU ROBERT ANTHONY JONES DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED.
ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS THE RESPONDENT TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY ALSO BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED.
THIS ORDER
1. This is an injunction and freezing order made against the Defendant, ROBERT ANTHONY JONES (the“Respondent”) on 16 June 2022 by His Honour Justice Robert French on the application of the Claimants, WILLIAM ALLAN JONES, COFFEE PLANET LLC, and COFFEE PLANET ROASTERY FZE (the“Applicants”). The Judge read the affidavit listed in Schedule A and accepted the undertakings set out in Schedule B at the end of this Order.
2. This Order was made at a hearing without notice to the Respondent. The Respondent has a right to apply to the DIFC Court to vary or discharge the Order – see paragraph 12 below.
3. There will be a further hearing in respect of this Order at12pm (Dubai time) on Wednesday, 6 July 2022with a time estimate of one hour (the“Return Date”).
Interim injunction
4. Until the Return Date or further Order of the DIFC Court, the Respondent must not in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of the assets referred to in Schedule C of this Order.
Freezing order
5. Until the Return Date or further Order of the DIFC Court, and subject to paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Order, the Respondent must not remove from Dubai or in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of his assets in Dubai.
6. Paragraph 5 applies to all the Respondent’s assets whether or not they are in his own name and whether they are solely or jointly owned. For the purpose of this order the Respondent’s assets include any asset which he has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were his own. The Respondent is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with the Respondent’s direct or indirect instructions.
7.
(1) The prohibition in paragraph 5 includes the assets listed in Schedule D.
(2) If the total value free of charges or other securities ("Unencumbered Value") of the Respondent’s assets in Dubai exceeds AED 3,000,000 (excluding any interest he claims in the assets listed in Schedule C), the Respondent may remove any of those assets from Dubai or may dispose of or deal with them so long as the total Unencumbered Value of the Respondent’s assets still in Dubai (excluding any listed in Schedule C) remains above AED 3,000,000.
(3) If the total Unencumbered Value of the Respondent’s assets in Dubai does not exceed AED 3,000,000 (excluding any interest he claims in the assets listed in Schedule C), the Respondent must not remove any of those assets from Dubai and must not dispose of or deal with any of them.
Provision of Information
8. The Respondent must:
(1) within 72 hours of service of this Order and to the best of his ability inform the Applicants' legal representatives of all his assets in Dubai or the DIFC exceeding US$100,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets; and
(2) within 7 calendar days of service of this order, and to the best of his ability inform the Applicants' legal representatives of any other of his assets in Dubai exceeding US$,10,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets.
9. Within 10 calendar days after being served with this Order, the Respondent must swear and serve on the Applicants' legal representatives an affidavit setting out the above information.
Exceptions to the Order
10
(1) Save with respect to those assets listed in Schedule C, this Order does not prohibit the Respondent from spending US$3,000 a week out of his assets in Dubai towards his ordinary living expenses and also a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation. But before spending any money the Respondent must tell the Applicants' legal representatives where the money is to come from.
1. The Respondent may agree with the Applicants' legal representatives that the above spending limits should be increased or that this order should be varied in any other respect, but any agreement must be in writing.
2. Paragraph 5 of this Order will cease to have effect if the Respondent:
(i) provides security by paying the sum of AED 3,000,000 into the DIFC Court to be held to the order of the Court; or
(ii) makes provision for security in that sum by another method agreed with the Applicants' legal representatives.
Costs
11. The costs of this application are reserved to the Judge hearing the application on the Return Date.
Variation or discharge of this Order
12. Anyone served with or notified of this Order may apply to the DIFC Court at any time to vary or discharge this Order (or so much of it as affects that person), but they must first inform the Applicants' legal representatives. If any evidence is to be relied upon in support of the application, the substance of it must be communicated in writing to the Applicants' legal representatives in advance.
Interpretation of this Order
13. A Respondent who is an individual who is ordered not to do something must not do it himself or in any other way. He must not do it through others acting on his behalf or on his instructions or with his encouragement.
14. A Respondent which is not an individual which is ordered not to do something must not do it itself or by its directors, officers, partners, employees or agents or in any other way.
Parties other than the Applicants and Respondent
Effect of this Order
15. It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this Order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this Order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.
Set off by banks
16. This injunction does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it may have in respect of any facility which it gave to the Respondent before it was notified of this Order.
Withdrawals by the Respondent
17. No bank need enquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by the Respondent if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this Order.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT
All communications to the DIFC Court about this Order should be sent to the DIFC at the following email address:registry@difccourts.ae.The DIFC Registry’s other contact details are: Telephone: +971 4 427 3333; Fax: +971 4 427 3330; Address: Ground Level, Building 4 The Gate District, DIFC.
Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of issue: 29 June 2022
At: 2.15pm
SCHEDULE A
Affidavits
The Applicants relied on the following affidavits and their respective exhibits
| Deponent | No. | Date Sworn/Affirmed |
|---|---|---|
| William Allan Jones ("WAJ 1st") | 1 | 23 June 2022 |
| William Allan Jones (“WAJ 2nd”) | 2 | 23 June 2022 |
SCHEDULE B
Undertakings given to the Court by the Applicants
1. If the DIFC Court later finds that this Order has caused loss to the Respondent and decides that the Respondent should be compensated for that loss, the Applicants will comply with any order the Court may make.
2. The Applicants will serve upon the Respondent as soon as practicable:
(1) copies of the affidavits and exhibits containing the evidence relied upon by the Applicants, and any other documents provided to the DIFC Court on the making of the application;
(2) the claim form; and
(3) an application notice for continuation of the Order.
3. Anyone notified of this Order will be given a copy of it by the Applicants' legal representatives.
4. The Applicants will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the Respondent which have been incurred as a result of this Order including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the Respondent’s assets and if the DIFC Court later finds that this Order has caused such person loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that loss, the Applicants will comply with any order the Court may make.
5. If this Order ceases to have effect (for example, if the Respondent provides security) the Applicants will immediately take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone to whom they have given notice of this Order, or who they have reasonable grounds for supposing may act upon this Order, that it has ceased to have effect.
6. The Applicants will not without the permission of the DIFC Court use any information obtained as a result of this Order for the purpose of any civil or criminal proceedings, other than this claim, the Dubai Courts claims which are the subject of this claim or any claim to enforce any judgment in those claims.
7. The Applicants have permission to enforce this Order in the onshore Dubai Courts and to seek an order of a similar nature including orders conferring a charge or other security against the Respondent or the Respondent’s assets, but will not without the permission of the DIFC Court, seek to enforce the Order elsewhere or seek an order of a similar nature including orders elsewhere conferring a charge or other security against the Respondent or the Respondent’s assets.
8. The Third Claimant, Coffee Planet Roastery FZE, shall file its claim against the Defendant / Respondent in the onshore Dubai Courts within ten business days of the date of issuance of this Order.
9. In addition to any other forms of notification, the Applicants will notify the Respondent of the Order, and has permission to serve this Order and all other documents in this case by:
(1) personal service through the appointment of a process service; and/or
(2) electronic means, via email and/or WhatsApp at the following email addresses and mobile numbers:
Email:dxbguy2015@gmail.com
Mob: +971 50 457 9421
10. Service will be deemed to have taken place the day after the email and/or WhatsApp message is sent.
Name and address of Applicants' Legal Representatives
The Applicants' legal representatives are
Trowers & Hamlins LLP
Office 2403, Level 24
Boulevard Plaza Tower 2
Downtown
PO Box 23092
Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Tel: +971 (0)4 3519201
Fax: +971 (0)4 3519205
Communications should be marked for the attention of Matthew Showler and Daniel Smith. Emails can also be sent tomshowler@trowers.comanddjsmith@trowers.com
SCHEDULE C
Disputed Assets
1. Villa No. M-07, Frond M, Palm Jumeirah, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
2. The following vehicles:
(1) Bentley Bentayga with plate no. R 2702;
(2) BMW M5 with plate no. I 42987;
(3) Audi RS7 with plate no. H 21955; and
(4) Lamborghini Huracan with plate no. L 1618.
SCHEDULE D
Respondent’s Assets
1. Villa 15, Centro Camino 11, The Villa, Dubailand, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
2. Any legal or beneficial, direct or indirect interest or right of the Respondent in the following companies, including any shareholding, (whether held for the Respondent by a nominee or agent or otherwise, directly or indirectly) or any interest which can arise by virtue of the exercise of any power of appointment, discretion or otherwise howsoever:
(1) Yalla Collect; and
(2) Yalla Group Software Solutions Ltd.
3. Any money in bank accounts whether held in the Respondent’s name or in the Respondent’s name jointly with others.
4. Any money standing to the credit of any bank account including the amount of any cheque drawn on such account which has not been cleared.
5. Any bonds.
6. Any interest in or right in respect of a pension, life insurance or other financial policy or instrument.
RULING
Introduction
1. The Applicants seek a Worldwide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and related disclosure orders in the Dubai International Financial Centre Court of First Instance (“DCFI”). The proposed orders are not in aid of any proceedings pending, or contemplated, in this Court. Rather, they relate to the enforcement of judgments which may emanate from two proceedings pending and one about to be instituted in the Onshore Dubai Courts.
2. The Applicants are William Allan Jones (“Allan Jones”) and two companies which he owns and of which he is the Chairman, namely Coffee Planet LLC (“CP LLC”) and Coffee Planet Roastery FZE (“CP FZE”). The two companies are part of the Coffee Planet Group (“CPG”), which supplies coffee and related products and services to businesses in the Middle East and Europe.
3. The Defendant, Robert Anthony Jones, is the son of the Allan Jones. He has held a number of roles within the CPG and was appointed as the Managing Director of CP FZE in April 2017.
4. On 26 April 2022, Allan Jones sent Robert Jones a Notice of Termination of his employment with CP FZE, pursuant to Article 44 of the Labour Law (Law 33 of 2021) of the UAE.
5. The Notice of Termination referred to the findings of an investigation into alleged misconduct by Robert Jones, the merits of which are not under consideration in this application.
6. The alleged misconduct and other matters relating to dealings with various items of disputed property have led to the initiation of proceedings against Robert Jones in the Onshore Dubai Courts. There are two such proceedings:
(1) A claim by Allan Jones against Robert Jones in the DCFI, designated Case No (Real Estate) 94/2022.
(2) A claim by CP LLC in the DCFI against Robert Jones, being Case No (Civil Full) 980/2022.
A third proceeding is about to be instituted by CP FZE.
The Claim by Allan Jones against Robert Jones
7. As appears from Allan Jones’ affidavit in support of this application, he commenced civil proceedings against his son in the DCFI on 6 June 2022. In the proceedings he seeks the following relief:
1. Transfer of the title of a property known as Palm Villa from Robert Jones to himself and, in the alternative, damages in the amount of AED 20,000,000, being the market value of the Palm Villa (or such other value as is determined by the Court as the market value of the Palm Villa) along with related losses and damages.
2. An order that the title to a Bentley Bentayga motor vehicle be transferred to him from Robert Jones and, alternatively, damages in the amount of AED 750,000.
3. Repayment of a loan which was advanced to Robert Jones in the amount of AED 2,120,000 to assist him with the purchase of a villa in Dubailand (“Dubailand Villa”) together with accrued interest (of AED 449,264 at the date of filing the claim).
8. In support of the Palm Villa claim, Allan Jones deposed that he lives in the Villa and is its owner, notwithstanding that the title deed dated 1 September 2020 shows the owner of the relevant land as Robert Jones and that it is subject to a mortgage in favour of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB).1
9. In his affidavit, Allan Jones asserted that it was the “agreed intention” of his son and himself that while the Palm Villa would be registered in his son’s name, he remained its owner and would pay for the Palm Villa and would live in it as its owner. It appears from correspondence between Allan Jones’ legal representatives and Robert Jones’ legal representatives, that Robert Jones has demanded payment of rent by his father and threatened eviction if the rent were not paid. Allan Jones’ legal representatives responded asserting that “… it was (and is) the common intention of R Jones and Allan Jones that Allan Jones is the owner of the Villa with an entitlement to live for nothing in the Villa indefinitely since the Villa belongs to Allan Jones.”2They invited Robert Jones to consent to transfer the title deeds to Allan Jones, absent which Allan Jones would institute proceedings against Robert Jones. The same letter noted that Robert Jones had referred to a “Tenancy Contract” and asked for production of a copy of the contract.
10. In his affidavit, Allan Jones set out the payments that he had made in respect of the Palm Villa:
1. AED 2,600,000 paid by him on 31 August 2020;
2. AED 4,393,313.26 paid by him to repay interest on the loan and other further charges associated with the mortgage for Palm Villa.
11. He referred to correspondence between his son and himself from August 2020, being an exchange of emails in which he directed his son to negotiate with ADCB the terms of the mortgage for the Palm Villa on his behalf with a loan amount of AED 3,900,000, being agreed at a loan to value ratio of 60%.
12. Allan Jones stated that pursuant to the arrangement he repaid the mortgage at monthly intervals. He paid Robert AED 352,500 in 15 monthly mortgage repayments of AED 23,500 between November 2020 and January 2022 so that his son could pay the monthly mortgage instalments on his behalf. These payments were set out in a document, Exhibit 14, to Allan Jones’ affidavit. He said in his affidavit:
“It was agreed and understood that after this final payment of AED 4,040,813.26 was made by me, title to and ownership of the Palm Villa would be transferred into my name from Robert pursuant to the agreement between Robert and me that I am the owner of the Palm Villa.”3
The agreement was said to be evidenced by Exhibit 17 to his affidavit, including an email from Robert Jones dated January 10, 2022 which stated:
“Once the mortgage is settled, the property can be transferred to you and at this stage further fees will be payable to the Dubai Land Department (based on the market value of the property) plus other admin fees…”
13. Allan Jones said that initially his son continued to act in accordance with the terms of the agreement. However, after he made the final payment of AED 4,040,813.26 his son reneged on the earlier agreement and refused to attend the Dubai Land Department to implement the transfer of the title to and ownership of the Palm Villa into his name. He then wrote to his son on 15 March 2022 by WhatsApp message. His son responded by a WhatsApp message on Tuesday, 15 March 2022, in which he stated:
“At this point I think we need to look at everything in the round. My life and future and everything that I have been working towards for the sake of the company and the family (which I believed I was a part of and a beneficiary) has been changed/removed.
Before we start transferring assets back and forth then we need [to] look at the whole picture in terms of my entitlements from CP as well as a suitable settlement representing my exit from the business and family. I’m sure you can appreciate my position and want to come to a fair outcome. Rob x”4
14. Allan Jones also pointed out in his affidavit that he had paid AED 200,000 as a commission to the real estate agent who had brokered the sale of the Palm Villa to him. This, he said, was paid in reliance on the agreement between his son and himself that he was the owner of the Palm Villa. There was no evidence that it was a gift. There was no tenancy agreement in place, although the records show that a tenancy contract information registration certificate was registered with the Land Department of the Government of Dubai on 30 June 2021. It showed the owner of the relevant property as Robert Anthony Jones and the tenant as William Allan Jones.
15. Allan Jones also claims ownership of a Bentley motor vehicle notwithstanding that the licence registration card shows Robert Jones as the owner. Allan Jones asserted in his affidavit that it was agreed between his son and himself that while the Bentley would be registered in his son’s name, he was the owner and would possess and drive it as its owner. He paid the entire purchase price of AED 750,000. This was not a gift to his son. He set out in his affidavit payments which he had made in respect of the Bentley.
16. He said that on 28 April 2022 his son’s legal representatives issued a Legal Notice to him reneging on the agreement that he had made with his son and wrongly claiming that it belonged to the son and seeking its return and/or damages. Allan Jones’ legal representatives wrote to his son on 29 April 2022 reminding him of the agreement. No response was received to that letter.
17. In his proceedings in the DCFI, Allan Jones seeks to have the Bentley and title to it transferred from his son’s name to his own and, alternatively, payment of damages by his son in the amount of AED 750,000, being the sum he has paid in respect of the Bentley.
18. In the same proceedings, Allan Jones seeks repayment of the sum of AED 2,120,000 which he says he lent to his son on 24 June 2018 to assist him with the purchase of a villa in Dubailand. He referred to two cheques, the first dated 24 June 2018 for AED 1,060,000 and the second, dated 24 June 2018 for AED 1,060,000 which were issued to his son. According to Allan Jones his son’s marriage to his now ex-wife Sofia, was in difficulty and his son was worried that she would return to her home country of Canada with their two children. Their living arrangements were a source of friction and it was thought that the purchase of the Dubailand Villa might help their relationship to strengthen and recover. The fact that this was a loan was discussed with his son at the time. Although Allan Jones had contemplated that the loan would be documented, his son and his son’s wife had a significant argument which led him to advance the money to Robert Jones as a matter of urgency, informed by the concern that the marriage could immediately fall apart. The Dubialand Villa was purchased in the hope that it would help Robert Jones and his wife salvage their relationship. No repayments have been made by Robert Jones in respect of the amount owed.
19. On 20 April 2022, Allan Jones’ legal representatives issued a Legal Notice to his son in respect of the amount owed and demanded its immediate repayment. This appeared as Exhibit 28 to Allan Jones’ affidavit. A further notice issued on 10 May 2022. No response was ever received from his son to the 20 April Legal Notice nor a follow-up letter from Allan Jones’ legal representatives, nor to the 10 May Legal Notice.
The Claim by CP LLC
20. Allan Jones’ affidavit then referred to the claim by CP LLC (theCP LLC Claim) against Robert Jones in the DCFI. This claim related to three motor vehicles, an advance on salary and an iPhone handset. The motor vehicles were respectively:
1. A BMW M5 in respect of which CP LLC claims title and, alternatively, an amount of AED 310,000, being the amount paid by CP LLC for the BMW.
2. An Audi RS7 for which CP LLC claims title and, alternatively, an amount of AED 472,775.78, being the amount paid by CP LLC for the Audi.
3. A Lamborghini Huracan, in respect of which CP LLC claims title and, alternatively, an amount of AED 1,496,361.25 being the sum paid by CP LLC in respect of the Lamborghini.
21. In addition, CP LLC seeks the return of an advance on salary of AED 40,000 made by it to Robert Jones that has not yet been repaid as it was agreed it would be.
22. The claim also covers an iPhone 12 handset, said to be the property of CP LLC and for which it seeks the return or an amount of AED 5,040.
23. Allan Jones’ affidavit provided detail in respect of each of these claims. The BMW is driven by another son William, who is in possession of it. He is the General Manager of CP LLC. However, the vehicle licence registration card shows Robert Jones as the owner of the BMW. According to Allan Jones, the agreed intention of Robert and CP LLC was that while the BMW would be registered in Robert’s name, CP LLC was the owner of the BMW (and would pay for it) and that William would possess and drive the BMW.
24. Allan Jones referred to an email sent by Robert Jones on 11 January 2022 to Allan Jones in which he made reference to “William’s car”, to which an amount of AED 310,000 was attached.5
25. Allan Jones pointed out that CP LLC had paid the entire purchase price of AED 310,000 for the BMW. It was not a gift from CP LLC to Robert. The agreement was that CP LLC was the owner of the BMW and that William would possess and drive it.
26. In its legal representative’s letter of 29 April 2022, CP LLC reminded Robert Jones of the agreement in relation to the BMW. However, no response was ever received to that letter.6
27. The Audi RSJ is registered in the name of CP LLC, which paid the full purchase price of AED 472,775.78 for it. It is a company car which was to be used for the benefit of CP LLC and other entities within CPG. While Robert Jones was the General Manager of CP FZE he was allowed to use the Audi. However, as noted earlier, that role was terminated on 26 April 2022. Despite that termination, Robert Jones is said to be still in possession of the Audi and has failed to return it to CP LLC. CP LLC’s legal representatives wrote to Robert Jones’ legal representatives on 30 May 2022 stating that the Audi belonged to CP LLC. This was not contested.
28. As to the Lamborghini Huracan, a vehicle licence registration card dated 28 December 2017 documents Robert Jones as its owner. The true owner of the Lamborghini, according to Allan Jones, is CP LLC. Again, he asserted that the agreed intention of Robert and CP LLC (through Allan Jones) was that while the Lamborghini would be registered in Robert’s name, CP LLC would be its owner. Part of the reason for registering the Lamborghini in Robert Jones’ name was that it helped with the insurance of the car. Allan Jones is 76 years old and because of that it was more difficult for him to obtain insurance for the Lamborghini than it was for Robert. Putting the vehicle in Robert’s name meant they were more easily able to obtain insurance. Allan Jones could still use the Lamborghini. He was happy to let Robert drive it. CP LLC paid the purchase price for the Lamborghini, which was AED 1,325,000. The purchase price was paid by a cheque of AED 250,000 from CP LLC dated 5 November 2017, which was a first instalment of a down payment for the Lamborghini. A further AED 15,000 was remitted to Robert Jones in November 2017 to pay on CP LLC’s behalf as the balance of the down payment.
29. The balance owing after that was paid for by way of a loan taken out by Robert Jones in his name. The monthly repayments of AED 19,700 were made by CP LLC. They were paid by CP LLC to Robert Jones for him to pay on behalf of CP LLC.
30. Allan Jones also referred to further amounts paid in respect of the Lamborghini by CP LLC for insurance and paint protection services and the number plate. The total amounts paid in respect of the Lamborghini were said to be AED 1,441,060.75.
31. A letter from CP LLC’s legal representatives dated 30 May 2022, informed Robert Jones that the Lamborghini belonged to CP LLC. The letter appeared as Exhibit 35 to Allan Jones’ affidavit. The claim was not contested by Robert Jones.
32. Allan Jones’ affidavit also referred to an advance to Robert Jones by CP LLC of an amount of AED 40,000 that was never repaid. This was by way of an advance on salary in September and October 2021.
33. The final element of the CP LLC Claim was in respect of an iPhone, details of which are set out in Allan Jones’ affidavit.
The proposed claim by CP FZE
34. A third claim by CP FZE against Robert Jones has not yet been filed. Allan Jones undertook in his affidavit, on behalf of CP FZE, that it would be filed within 10 working days of the application being issued. It would be in respect of expenses wrongly claimed by Robert Jones during his employment by the CPG. The expenses so far identified totalled AED 155,881, some of which had already been claimed in the CP LLC Claim.
Other proceedings
35. Allan Jones’ affidavit referred to other proceedings against Robert Jones in respect of which no freezing order is sought. It is not clear why these matters were referred to. There were in addition claims brought by Robert Jones against the Claimants. These were proceedings commenced by him against his father on 25 May 2022 in the Dubai Rental Disputes Settlement Committee (“RDC”), being a “Rental Claim” and proceedings commenced against CP LLC and CP FZE in the Dubai Labour Courts. This is the “Labour Claim”. In the Rental Claim, Robert Jones claims rental and an eviction order against his father. In the Labour Claim he alleges that his employment with CP FZE and CP LLC was wrongly terminated and that as a result he is entitled to AED 10,123,016 plus interest.
36. Allan Jones’ affidavit stated his belief that Robert Jones was trying to sell a collection of luxury watches for a combined sale price of AED 492,000. He was unable to establish it definitively that the watches belonged to Robert Jones but thought it most likely that they do.
37. Allan Jones also referred to assets held by Robert Jones in the DIFC in the form of shares in two companies designated Yallo Collect and Yallo Group Software Solutions Ltd.
38. In his affidavit and by way of disclosure required in an ex parte application, Allan Jones made reference to potential arguments against the order sought that might be advanced by Robert Jones, including arguments about jurisdiction.
The question of jurisdiction and power
39. There is a preliminary issue of jurisdiction and power. Allan Jones invokes the jurisdiction of the DIFC CFI to make a freezing order despite the absence of any pending proceeding in this Court. He refers to the power of the DIFC court to enforce Dubai Court Judgments, invoking Articles 7(4) and 5(a)(1)(e) of the Judicial Authority Law, together with Article 24 of the DIFC Court Law. He relied in particular on the decisions inBarclay’s Bank v Suhail[2021] DIFC CA 003 at [13]–[16]." data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="top">7and Lateef v Liela.8In the latter case, Justice Wayne Martin, sitting as the CFI, observed at [125]:
“it is common ground and beyond doubt that the Court has jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgments.Broad Ideaauthoritatively establishes that the grant of freezing orders pursuant to the enforcement principle is an incident of that jurisdiction.”
40. Justice Martin also said at [127]:
“the DIFC Courts have ample jurisdiction to exercise their unqualified injunctive powers in accordance with the enforcement principle which underpins the grant of freezing orders as an incident of the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce judgments, whether domestic or foreign, and whether the judgment has been granted or is prospective. That jurisdiction does not depend upon the existence of a cause of action which can be maintained against the defendants in the DIFC Courts, or upon the existence of assets within the DIFC which might be available in execution of the relevant judgment.”
41. I express no concluded view on the questions of jurisdiction and power for the purpose of this application. As the Court of Appeal said inCredit Suisse (Switzerland) Ltd v Goel:[2020] DIFC CA 008 at [11] and [12]." data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="top">9
“11. Where the CFI is faced with an ex parte application for a freezing order and is satisfied that it does not have jurisdiction and that the contrary is not really arguable the Court must refuse the freezing order. However, where the CFI is of the view that the question of jurisdiction is reasonably arguable and that there are questions of fact and/or questions of law the preferable course is for the CFI to grant the interim relief and determine the question of jurisdiction after hearing argument from both the claimant and the Defendants. It must of course be satisfied … that grounds for the grant of the interim relief have been made out on the merits.
12. The CFI has a preliminary jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction. As an incident of that preliminary jurisdiction it may, in an appropriate case, grant interim relief to preserve the status quo pending the determination of its jurisdiction. Where a freezing order has been made the CFI may make it for a limited time only requiring a renewal application by the claimant on notice to the Defendant. On the renewal application the Defendants can oppose renewal and the question of jurisdiction can be heard and determined. An alternative mechanism is to grant the freezing order with liberty to the defendants to apply to discharge it on the ground that it should not have been granted and on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in which the freezing order is brought.”
Whether an order should be made
42. There is, on the face of the application, an arguable case that the Court has jurisdiction and the requisite power to make an order of the kind sought. I make no concluded determination on that question as the Respondent must be able to challenge both jurisdiction and power if he sees fit.
43. That said, the claims which have been and are about to be commenced in the DCFI raise arguable cases with a plausible evidential basis. This is not to say that they are free from doubt. There may be questions about whether the relief claimed is available in the Dubai Courts and, if so, upon what basis. The record of title arrangements that have been made in relation to the Palm Villa and the motor vehicles will also give rise to questions of law and fact.
44. The history of dealings and communications between Allan Jones and the CPG on the one hand and Robert Jones on the other does suggest that there is a non-trivial risk of assets being dissipated in a way that could defeat the claims brought in the Dubai Courts. In my opinion, however, the WFO sought by the Claimants is too far reaching. As indicated to Senior Counsel for the Claimants in the course of the hearing of the application, the order made should be limited in scope and time.
45. The order should be applicable to the real property held in the name of Robert Jones, the motor vehicles, the shares in the Yallo companies and, relevantly to the loan and repayment claims, a sum of money not exceeding AED 3,000,000 which covers the loan claim plus interest, the advance of salary and the claim for AED 155,881, being expenses presently identified as wrongfully claimed by Robert Jones in relation to his employment with CP FZE.
46. At the close of argument, counsel was invited to prepare a revised draft order giving effect to the above limitations. The order should be subject to a return date upon which the defendant may apply for its discharge or variation. The return date should be fixed by the Registrar initially, subject to variation according to the availability of counsel and the Court.
47. The order is subject to undertakings as to damages which have been offered by the Claimants and are incorporated in the order.
48. A revised draft has been prepared and subject to minor amendment is the order the Court now makes.