Mad Atelier International B.V. v (1) Axel Manes (2) Catherine Zhilla [2022] DIFC CFI 030 (07 September 2022)

Mad Atelier International B.V. v (1) Axel Manes (2) Catherine Zhilla [2022] DIFC CFI 030 (07 September 2022)

The Stay Order was set aside because it was unjustly granted without allowing parties to make legal representations and was based on a misunderstanding of the parties' positions. The JJC Stay Applications were dismissed as the criteria for a stay under Article 5 of Dubai Decree No. 19 of 2016 were not met, as there was no positive act by both courts creating a conflict of jurisdiction. The Freezing Orders remain unaffected by the Stay Order.

Citation
[2022] DIFC CFI 030
Parties
Claimant: Mad Atelier International B. V.; First Defendant: Axel Manes; Second Defendant: Catherine Zhilla
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
07 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—order Setting Aside Stay and Dismissing Stay Applications
Outcome
Stay Order set aside; JJC Stay Applications dismissed; Freezing Orders remain in effect; extension of time granted for costs submissions.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdictional Conflict, Joint Judicial Committee Applications, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Jurisdictional Conflict Joint Judicial Committee Applications Freezing 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mad Atelier International B. V.

Claimant

Axel Manes

First Defendant

Catherine Zhilla

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—order Setting Aside Stay and Dismissing Stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Stay Order should be set aside for lack of opportunity to make legal representations
  2. 2 Whether the JJC Stay Applications justified a stay under Article 5 of Dubai Decree No. 19 of 2016
  3. 3 Effect of the Stay Order on existing Freezing Orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Stay Order was set aside because it was unjustly granted without allowing parties to make legal representations and was based on a misunderstanding of the parties' positions. The JJC Stay Applications were dismissed as the criteria for a stay under Article 5 of Dubai Decree No. 19 of 2016 were not met, as there was no positive act by both courts creating a conflict of jurisdiction. The Freezing Orders remain unaffected by the Stay Order.

Court Disposition

Stay Order set aside; JJC Stay Applications dismissed; Freezing Orders remain in effect; extension of time granted for costs submissions.

Orders

  • The Stay Order is set aside.
  • The JJC Stay Applications are dismissed.