Jeffrey Stone v (1) Abhi Fintech Limited (2) Abhi Limited [2025] DIFC CFI 089 (16 April 2025)

Jeffrey Stone v (1) Abhi Fintech Limited (2) Abhi Limited [2025] DIFC CFI 089 (16 April 2025)

Permission to adduce expert evidence is granted to both parties because the Claimant’s alternative claim for damages requires valuation of shares, which the Court cannot determine without expert assistance. The Defendants’ opposition is rejected as the pleadings and list of issues demonstrate a real possibility that damages may need to be assessed. Costs of expert evidence are to be costs in the case, and the Defendants must pay the Claimant’s costs of the application in full.

Citation
[2025] DIFC CFI 089
Parties
Claimant: Jeffrey Stone; First Defendant: Abhi Fintech Limited; Second Defendant: Abhi Limited
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
16 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Invalid Termination, Share Entitlement, Specific Performance, Damages, Expert Evidence, Costs
Employment Law Contract Law Remedies Invalid Termination Share Entitlement Specific Performance Damages Expert Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Stone

Claimant

Abhi Fintech Limited

First Defendant

Abhi Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is expert evidence reasonably required to resolve the proceedings regarding the valuation of the Claimant’s share entitlement?
  2. 2 Should both parties be permitted to call forensic accountancy experts?
  3. 3 How should costs of expert evidence and the application be allocated?

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce expert evidence is granted to both parties because the Claimant’s alternative claim for damages requires valuation of shares, which the Court cannot determine without expert assistance. The Defendants’ opposition is rejected as the pleadings and list of issues demonstrate a real possibility that damages may need to be assessed. Costs of expert evidence are to be costs in the case, and the Defendants must pay the Claimant’s costs of the application in full.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Both parties are granted permission to call one forensic accountancy expert to provide their opinion on the value of the Claimant’s non-dilutable shareholding in the Second Defendant.
  • Paragraph 16 of the Case Management Order applies.