Commercial Bank of Dubai Psc & Ors. v Abdalla Juma Majid al Sari

Relief from sanctions for a late acknowledgement of service should be determined by the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Limited: seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for it, and all the circumstances. A delay may be serious without being at the highest end of the scale where it causes no material prejudice or disruption. An objectively inadequate explanation does not necessarily require refusal of relief if it provides some excuse. The court should weigh compliance with procedural rules against the proportionate administration of justice. Where refusal would deprive a party of a prima facie jurisdiction challenge without corresponding benefit to the other side, relief may be appropriate. Conditions concerning separate disclosure, freezing-order compliance or underlying merits should not ordinarily be attached when they are not properly connected with the procedural default.

The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants, including UAE and BVI companies, alleging that a Sharjah judgment had been procured by fraud and seeking relief in tort and under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The seventh to ninth defendants filed acknowledgements of service 12 and 21 days late and later applied under CPR Part 11 to challenge jurisdiction. They sought an extension of time and relief from sanctions. The claimants did not oppose relief in principle but sought conditions requiring beneficial-ownership disclosure, compliance with a worldwide freezing order and payment of costs. The central issue was whether relief should be granted and, if so, on what conditions.

1. Relief granted. The seventh to ninth defendants’ late acknowledgements of service constituted serious, non-trivial and significant breaches, but were not at the highest end of seriousness. The delay had caused no real prejudice or material disruption, and the wider proceedings would not significantly advance before the jurisdiction challenges were heard.
2. The court applied the three stages identified in Denton v TH White Limited: seriousness and significance; the reasons for default; and all the circumstances. The defendants’ unfamiliarity with English procedure was not an objectively good reason, but, if true, provided some excuse. The court could not resolve the disputed allegation that the defendants’ evidence was untruthful on this interlocutory material.
3. Under the third stage, compliance with procedural rules remained important, but enforcement did not require refusal of relief. Refusal would be disproportionate because the defendants had a prima facie basis for challenging jurisdiction, while the claimants obtained no corresponding practical benefit from preventing that challenge.
4. The court refused to impose conditions requiring disclosure concerning ultimate beneficial ownership and control, further compliance with paragraph (6) of the continuation order, or payment of the claimants’ costs as a condition of relief. Those matters were either directed to the underlying merits or properly addressed in the freezing-order and contempt proceedings.
5. An extension of time was granted without conditions. The claimants were awarded half their costs, summarily assessed at £45,000.

This was a first-instance interlocutory application in the Commercial Court. The judgment records earlier ex parte freezing-order and service orders, a return-date hearing, and the subsequent procedural steps, but no appealed decision.