Quantcast
Channel: DIFC Courts
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 1139

CFI 023/2017 Meloud Benfetta v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited

$
0
0

Claim No. CFI 023/2017

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MELOUD BENFETTA

Claimant

and

DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant


DEFAULT JUDGMENT MADE BY JUDICIAL OFFICER NASSIR AL NASSER


UPON the request made by the Claimant on 20 September 2017 for a Default Judgment in accordance with Rule 13.1 [(1) and (2)] of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), it is found as follows:

1.The request is not one prohibited by RDC 13.3 (1) or (2).

2. The Defendant has filed an Acknowledgment of Service but has failed to file a Defence and the relevant time for so doing has expired (RDC 13.5(1)).

3. The Defendant has not: (i) applied to the DIFC Courts to have the Claimant’s statement of case struck out under RDC 4.16; or for immediate judgment under RDC Part 24 (RDC 13.6(1)); (ii) satisfied the whole claim (including any claim for costs) on which the Claimant is seeking judgment; or (iii) filed or served on the Claimant an admission under RDC 15.14 or 15.24 together with a request for time to pay (RDC 13.6(3)).

4. The Claimant filed a Certificate of Service in accordance with RDC 9.43 on 7 May 2017.

5. The Claimant has followed the required procedure for obtaining Default Judgment [RDC 13.7 and 13.8].

6. The claim is for a specified sum of money and the request specifies the date by which the whole of the judgment debt is to be paid or the times and rate at which it is to be paid by instalments (RDC 13.9).

7. The request includes a request for interest pursuant to RDC 13.14 and the Claim Form sets out the calculation of interest in the claim, but the Claimant failed to provide a justification for the 12% interest.

8. The DIFC Courts are satisfied that the conditions of RDC 13.22 and RDC 13.23 [defendant served outside jurisdiction] have been met.

9. The Claimant has submitted evidence, as required by RDC 13.24, that (i) the claim is one that the DIFC Courts have power to hear and decide; (ii) no other court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim; and (iii) the claim has been properly served (RDC 13.22/13.23).

ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

10. The request is granted.

11. The SPA dated 24 November 2009 signed by the Claimant and the Defendant in relation to the Unit No. (DFO/2A/215A Office) shall be void.

12. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 600,178.00 at the rate of one plus Emirates Inter Bank Offered Rate (EIBOR) from the maturity date until the date of payment.

13. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant its costs of the proceedings to be assessed if not agreed.

14. The Claimant shall serve this Order on the Defendant.

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser      

Judicial Officer

Date of Issue: 25 September 2017

At: 4pm

The post CFI 023/2017 Meloud Benfetta v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited appeared first on DIFC Courts.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 1139

Trending Articles