Union Properties PJSC v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Ors (Claimants; Variation Application - Security for Costs) [2024] ADGMCFI 0004 (09 May 2024)

Union Properties PJSC v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Ors (Claimants; Variation Application - Security for Costs) [2024] ADGMCFI 0004 (09 May 2024)

The application to vary the March Order was refused because the proposed bank guarantee did not provide adequate security for both claimants, and there was insufficient evidence that a satisfactory guarantee could be promptly provided. The claimants had not justified their non-compliance, particularly as they could have paid into court. However, in the interests of justice and the overriding objective, the claimants were granted a final 14-day extension to provide security by payment into court (or other form agreed by the Twelfth Defendant).

Citation
[2024] ADGMCFI 0004
Parties
First Claimant/applicant: Union Properties P.J.S.C.; Second Claimant/applicant: UPP Capital Investment Co. L.L.C.; First Defendant/respondent: Trinkler & Partners Ltd; Second Defendant/respondent: Thomas Pierre Trinkler; Third Defendant/respondent: Patrick Albert Held; Fourth Defendant/respondent: First Fund Management Limited; Fifth Defendant/respondent: Jorg Klar; Sixth Defendant/respondent: Paresh Chandrasen Khiara; Seventh Defendant/respondent: Amna Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi; Eighth Defendant/respondent: Dahi Yousef Ahmed Abdulla Almansoori; Ninth Defendant: Naser Butti Omair Yousef Almheiri; Tenth Defendant/respondent: Khalifa Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi; Eleventh Defendant/respondent: Stefan Dubach; Twelfth Defendant/respondent: Ahmed Yousef Abdulla Hussain Khouri; Thirteenth Defendant/respondent: Hassan Ashoor Al Mulla; Fourteenth Respondent: Blue Rock Investments L.L.C; Fifteenth Respondent: Dana Middle East Investment L.L.C; Sixteenth Respondent: Mohamed Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi; Seventeenth Respondent: Island Falcon Property Management L.L.C; Eighteenth Respondent: Island Falcon Investments L.L.C; Nineteenth Respondent: Texture Global Investment Limited
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
09 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud, Security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Order and for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application to vary the March Order refused; extension of time granted for provision of security by payment into court.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Variation of Court Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Bank Guarantees, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Variation of Court Orders Relief From Sanctions Bank Guarantees Non Compliance With Court Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Properties P.J.S.C.

First Claimant/applicant

UPP Capital Investment Co. L.L.C.

Second Claimant/applicant

Trinkler & Partners Ltd

First Defendant/respondent

Thomas Pierre Trinkler

Second Defendant/respondent

Patrick Albert Held

Third Defendant/respondent

First Fund Management Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Jorg Klar

Fifth Defendant/respondent

Paresh Chandrasen Khiara

Sixth Defendant/respondent

Amna Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi

Seventh Defendant/respondent

Dahi Yousef Ahmed Abdulla Almansoori

Eighth Defendant/respondent

Naser Butti Omair Yousef Almheiri

Ninth Defendant

Khalifa Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi

Tenth Defendant/respondent

Stefan Dubach

Eleventh Defendant/respondent

Ahmed Yousef Abdulla Hussain Khouri

Twelfth Defendant/respondent

Hassan Ashoor Al Mulla

Thirteenth Defendant/respondent

Blue Rock Investments L.L.C

Fourteenth Respondent

Dana Middle East Investment L.L.C

Fifteenth Respondent

Mohamed Hasan Ali Saleh Alhammadi

Sixteenth Respondent

Island Falcon Property Management L.L.C

Seventeenth Respondent

Island Falcon Investments L.L.C

Eighteenth Respondent

Texture Global Investment Limited

Nineteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud, Security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Order and for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be granted a variation of the March Order regarding security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the form of bank guarantee proposed by the claimants provides adequate security.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants should be relieved from the consequences of non-compliance with the March Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the March Order was refused because the proposed bank guarantee did not provide adequate security for both claimants, and there was insufficient evidence that a satisfactory guarantee could be promptly provided. The claimants had not justified their non-compliance, particularly as they could have paid into court. However, in the interests of justice and the overriding objective, the claimants were granted a final 14-day extension to provide security by payment into court (or other form agreed by the Twelfth Defendant).

Court Disposition

Application to vary the March Order refused; extension of time granted for provision of security by payment into court.

Orders

  • Application to vary the March Order is refused.
  • Claimants granted 14 days from the order to provide security for the Twelfth Defendant's costs by payment into court (or other form agreed by Mr Khouri).