Frontline Development Partners Limited v Asif Hakim Adil [2015] DIFC CA 005 (15 September 2015)

Frontline Development Partners Limited v Asif Hakim Adil [2015] DIFC CA 005 (15 September 2015)

Although conditions for ordering security for costs were satisfied, it was not just to make such an order at this stage because the Claimant had already prosecuted his claim to trial and an enforceable undertaking for costs had been offered by the Claimant's wife. The Defendant chose to proceed to trial without security and must bear the consequences.

Citation
[2015] DIFC CA 005
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Frontline Development Partners Limited; Respondent/claimant: Asif Hakim Adil
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
15 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure, Employment Termination
Civil Procedure Employment Law Security for Costs Appeal Procedure Employment Termination

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frontline Development Partners Limited

Appellant/defendant

Asif Hakim Adil

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the application for security for costs under RDC 25.101
  2. 2 Whether conditions under RDC 25.102 for ordering security for costs were satisfied
  3. 3 Whether it was just to order security for costs at the appeal stage

Ratio Decidendi

Although conditions for ordering security for costs were satisfied, it was not just to make such an order at this stage because the Claimant had already prosecuted his claim to trial and an enforceable undertaking for costs had been offered by the Claimant's wife. The Defendant chose to proceed to trial without security and must bear the consequences.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of 25 February 2015 not set aside or varied
  • Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal