Claim No. CFI 073/2022
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
LALS HOLDINGS LIMITED
Claimant
and
(1) EMIRATES INSURANCE COMPANY (PSC) (“EIC”)
(2) SIACI INSURANCE BROKERS LLC
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR PETER GROSS
UPON the Part 7 Claim Form dated 19 October 2022
AND UPON the Trial of the Preliminary Issues held on 11 September 2023 to 13 September 2023 (the “Trial”)
AND UPON the Judgment of Justice Sir Peter Gross dated 1 November 2023 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the First Defendant’s (“EIC”) Appeal Notice dated 22 November 2023 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Permission Application”)
AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s written submissions in response to the Permission Application
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material added on to the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The First Defendant’s Permission Application is refused.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 10 January 2024
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. Having carefully considered EIC’s application and its skeleton argument, I refuse permission to appeal (the “Permission Application”).
2. I am not persuaded that the appeal would have a realistic prospect of success (Rule 44.19(1) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)).
3. Largely (and understandably), EIC repeats the arguments which failed before me at the Trial of the Preliminary Issues. I remain unpersuaded by those arguments, and it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons set out in the Judgment.
4. To the extent that EIC has raised new arguments, they appear to risk undermining its principal submissions or not to take the matter further.
5. Thus:
(1) In para. 15.1 of EIC’s skeleton argument, it is said that EIC’s argument:“… is not that there will never be cover under the LOA Clause if there is cover under the Closure Clause.”With respect, this (new) contention appears, as contended in the Claimant’s Written Submissions (at para. 20)“to undermine the fundamental premise of the very argument it seeks permission to appeal on.”
(2) So far as concerns para. 17.1 of EIC’s skeleton argument and the observations in the Judgment (at [104] – [105]), that this was the most attractive argument on the point and gave me the greatest pause for thought, does not equate to it having a realistic prospect of success on an appeal.
6. Therefore, the First Defendant’s Permission Application is refused.