Muqqi v Muwan (2) Misal (3) Minur (4) Maut (5) Mabtu (6) Maru (7) Mirki (8) Mofu (9) Meker [2023] DIFC CFI 017 (23 May 2023)

Muqqi v Muwan (2) Misal (3) Minur (4) Maut (5) Mabtu (6) Maru (7) Mirki (8) Mofu (9) Meker [2023] DIFC CFI 017 (23 May 2023)

The court found that the claimant lacked accessible assets to meet an adverse costs order, and that the defendants satisfied the conditions for security for costs under RDC 25.102(2). The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that a security order would stifle its claim. The court held that the timing and procedural requirements were met, and that the order was just in all the circumstances.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CFI 017
Parties
Claimant: Muqqi; Defendant: Muwan; Defendant: Misal; Defendant: Minur; Defendant: Maut; Defendant: Mabtu; Defendant: Maru; Defendant: Mirki; Defendant: Mofu; Defendant: Meker
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
23 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Costs Orders, Enforcement of Costs, Corporate Veil
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Interlocutory Applications Costs Orders Enforcement of Costs Corporate Veil

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muqqi

Claimant

Muwan

Defendant

Misal

Defendant

Minur

Defendant

Maut

Defendant

Mabtu

Defendant

Maru

Defendant

Mirki

Defendant

Mofu

Defendant

Meker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs can be ordered at the interlocutory stage
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is unable to pay an adverse costs order
  3. 3 Whether ordering security for costs would stifle the claimant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant lacked accessible assets to meet an adverse costs order, and that the defendants satisfied the conditions for security for costs under RDC 25.102(2). The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that a security order would stifle its claim. The court held that the timing and procedural requirements were met, and that the order was just in all the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Claimant to pay USD 300,000 to the court as security for costs in respect of the injunction application.