Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors. v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sarl & Ors.

The court may impose a sanction under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 3.1(3)(b), where necessary to secure compliance with a procedural order. The sanction should be directed to securing compliance and preventing prejudice, wasted costs or delay. Where parties have failed repeatedly to comply and there is a significant risk of further default, debarring them from adducing evidence may be appropriate. The court may also direct an expedited hearing to consider the consequences of default and any application for relief from the sanction.

The Bank sought an order requiring four defendants to serve evidence in response to its summary judgment application concerning enforcement of a Sharjah judgment. The evidence had been due in May 2022, but the defendants had not served it and had indicated that they would await determination of jurisdiction challenges.

The court held that the jurisdiction challenges were irrelevant to the enforcement claim. The Bank therefore sought a deadline backed by a sanction to prevent further delay and possible prejudice before the summary judgment hearing.

1. The application was granted in principle. The defendants were required to serve any evidence in response to the summary judgment application by a specified date.
2. The jurisdiction challenges did not concern the enforcement claim. They provided no good reason to postpone service of evidence until after those challenges had been determined.
3. Under CPR 3.1(3)(b), the court had a broad discretion to impose sanctions for non-compliance with a court order. A sanction was necessary because the defendants had a history of failing to comply with procedural rules and court orders, creating a significant risk of further delay, wasted costs, ambush and prejudice to the Bank.
4. The appropriate sanction was that, if evidence was not served by the ordered date, the defendants would be debarred from adducing evidence on the summary judgment application. The sanction was intended to secure compliance rather than punish default.
5. An expedited hearing of approximately one hour was also to be fixed to consider the consequences of non-compliance, including any application for relief from the debarring sanction and, if appropriate, whether summary judgment could then be granted.

The precise order was to be set out separately.