Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 035 (19 September 2025)

Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 035 (19 September 2025) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] The Dubai International Financial Centre You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 035 (19 September 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_035.html Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 35, [2025] DIFC CFI 035 [ New search ] [ Help ] CFI 035/2025 Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies Ltd September 19, 2025 court of first instance - Orders Claim No. CFI 035/2025 THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BETWEEN ELI MYDLARZ Claimant and SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES LTD Defendant ORDER OF H. E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-035-2025/2 dated 30 June 2025 seeking to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Application”) AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s evidence in answer to the Application dated 14 July 2025 AND UPON reviewing all documents filed in support of the Application and their respective responses AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Defendant at the hearing held before H. E. Justice Roger Stewart on 3 September 2025 (the “Hearing”) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Application is dismissed. 2. The Defendant shall pay the amount of AED 47,000 as costs to the Claimant. Issued by: Delvin Sumo Assistant Registrar Date of issue: 19 September 2025 At: 3pm SCHEDULE OF REASONS 1. For reasons given ex tempore at the Hearing: (a) The Claimant originally pleaded the matter as an employment law claim for remuneration. On that basis, and by reference to Article 22 of the DIFC Employment Law, the claim would have been time-barred, having been filed 13 days late; (b) The Claimant had, however, amended its case so as to assert that this was not an employment law case; (c) The Defendant accepted that the arguments made in this case were materially the same as those in case CFI-025-2025; (d) The Court, accepted that the correct characterisation of the Claim is contractual, arising under the Grant Agreement and/or the Share Incentive Plan for the reasons set out in the judgment in CFI-025-2025; (e) Under DIFC law (or English law, which may also apply given the conflicting governing law clauses), the relevant limitation period is six years. It was therefore unnecessary for the Court to determine definitively which law applies, as the Claim is within time under both. (f) The Application to contest jurisdiction was accordingly dismissed. (g) In this case, the Claimant has successfully defeated the Claim. The attempt to deny jurisdiction on the Claim has not changed its case. (h) The Defendant asserts that it put forward arguments in good faith, I don't doubt that. However, that is not relevant to the incidence of costs. It put forward those arguments and it lost, and in principle the Claimant is entitled to the costs. (i) So far as the quantum is concerned, the overall quantum is AED 48,300. The costs in general seem to be reasonable to me. (j) It is ordered that the Defendant pay the sum of AED 47,000 to the Claimant, which I assess as being the appropriate figure for costs. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_035.html