Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
UPON the request made by the Claimant on 31 October 2023 (the “Request”) for a Default Judgment in accordance with Rule 13.1(1) and (2) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) against the Defendant, and the accompanying witness statement of Hamdan Abdullah Alkaabi dated 26 October 2023, it is found as follows:
The Request is not one permitted by RDC 13.4 on the basis that the Defendant has failed to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a Defence to the claim (or any part of the claim) with the DIFC Courts and the relevant time for so doing has expired.
The Defendant has not: (i) applied to the DIFC Courts to have the Claimant’s statement of case struck out under RDC 4.16; or for immediate judgment under RDC Part 24 (RDC 13.6(1)); (ii) satisfied the whole claim (including any claim for costs) on which the Claimant is seeking judgment; or (iii) filed or served on the Claimant an admission under RDC 15.14 or 15.24 together with a request for time to pay in accordance with RDC 13.6(3).
The Claimant filed a Certificate of Service in accordance with RDC 9.43 on 22 September 2023.
The Claimant has followed the required procedure for obtaining Default Judgment in accordance with RDC 13.7 and 13.8.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.