Laktineh & Co Ltd v Ahmed Al Hatta & Anor [2020] ADGMCFI 0001 (30 January 2020)

Laktineh & Co Ltd v Ahmed Al Hatta & Anor [2020] ADGMCFI 0001 (30 January 2020)

The application to set aside the default judgment was refused because, although the first defendant had a real prospect of defending the claim, he failed to make the application promptly as required by Rule 41(2)(c) of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016. The evidence showed he was aware of the judgment by at least May 2019, but did not apply to set aside until December 2019.

Citation
[2020] ADGMCFI 0001
Parties
Claimant: Laktineh & Co Ltd; First Defendant: Ahmed Al Hatti; Second Defendant: Cayan Real Estate and Development LLC
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application to set aside default judgment refused
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Promptness, Personal Liability, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Promptness Personal Liability Service of Process Jurisdiction Res Judicata +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laktineh & Co Ltd

Claimant

Ahmed Al Hatti

First Defendant

Cayan Real Estate and Development LLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the default judgment was made promptly under Rule 41(2)(c) of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim under Rule 41(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the ADGM Court had jurisdiction over the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the default judgment was refused because, although the first defendant had a real prospect of defending the claim, he failed to make the application promptly as required by Rule 41(2)(c) of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016. The evidence showed he was aware of the judgment by at least May 2019, but did not apply to set aside until December 2019.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside default judgment refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside default judgment is refused.
  • Costs reserved.