Applications by first DEFENDANT
Skeleton argument, The First Defendant, 5-Nov-2025
The First Defendant relied on it for the CMC scheduled on the 10th on November 2025, The First Defendant rely on the DIFC Law of Obligation, DIFC Companies Law and the DIFC Contract Law.
Schedule A to part 26 – case management information sheet, 28-Oct-2025
Affidavits, 2-Oct-2025
The two Affidavits are notarised by the DIFC Court Notary on 19 September 2025, 5 days prior to the deadline for filing the Defence as per a Court Order dated 4 Sep.
The Defendants anticipated that these Affidavits will be reflected into the case records since these are attested at the DIFC Court Notary itself before the Defendants realize the the same have to be manually downloaded and submitted along the filings before the 24 of Sep.
DEFENDANT’ RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT REPLY ON APPLICATION CFI-066-2024/8, 2-Oct-2025
Court permission to respond to the Claimant submission on 26 September , herein, the Defendants submitted a formal response.
CONCISE OVERVIEW
Key Arguments:
- Rejects Claimants’ Accusations: The Defendants state that the Claimants have presented no credible evidence to support their claims.
- Deny withholding evidence: The Defendants explain that any past filing issues were due to the former legal counsel (Lutfi & Co.) unsatisfactory conduct, . They also state they have re-filed all evidence with enhanced detail.
- the Claimants’ Challenging Approach: The Defendants accused the Claimants of a systematic strategy of disputing every piece of evidence and document authenticity, and that delays proceedings.
- Proposed a Solution: To dispel doubts, the Defendants suggested a transparent process, sending all emails directly to the claimant’s counsel (copying the court) and allowing the court to directly examine electronic evidence from the First Defendant’s phone.
- Specific Defenses:
- The Affidavit dated 11 August 2025 is authentic and accurate.
- Application no. 8 was only to clarify that The Defendants never permitted AI-generated content in a submission by their former counsel.
- And that the struck-out “Amended Defence” is now irrelevant and doubting it is a waste of time.
Relief Sought from the Court:
Handle the issue of costs as per their separate Objection Application no. 10.
Dismiss the Claimants’ request to strike out their Application no. 8.
1. Brief summary of the Claimants’ response
“The Claimants’ formal response argues that the Defendant’s app 8 admits to withholding evidence and demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance with court orders.
The Claimants again requested the Court to strike out the Defendant’s Urgent Declaration filed, and that the court to deny any request by the Defendants to reduce the costs amount.” as seen thereon.
1.1 The Defendants asserted that the Claimants uses a systematic method of questioning
every material evidences produced and argues even the Struck out filings and Part 1.8 of RDC
1.2 The Defendants note that no credible evidence supports the claims against them.
Their submissions after the 3rd March CMC, though concise but provided proof that refuted key allegations, such as the false claim about unpaid salaries.
1.3 The Claimants are disputing the authenticity of every disclosed document.
Continuing in this manner is unproductive for all parties.
1.4 The Defendants proposed a two-part solution to verify evidences
1 – Send all case-related emails directly from the defendant’s account to the claimant’s counsel, copying the Registry.
2- Authenticate all electronic communications and, allow for the direct examination of evidence from the First Defendant’s phone in court.
2. Response to the alleged issues raised from the Urgent Declaration filed
2.1 The allegations challenging the authenticity of the First Defendant’s August 11, 2025 Affidavit
are baseless. Its contents are accurate, the referenced documents are provided and verifiable, All statements and evidence are truthful, and the only document in dispute is the “Amended Defence” which the Claimants need to prove.
2.2 The First Defendant assures that the reason why the Affidavit being attested by
a different part II registered lawyer stems from Lutf & Co.’s inability to obtain an appointment at the DIFC Court before the submission deadline.
{ evidence in annexure E6 }
2.3 The First Defendant conveyed in his Witness Statement, filed with Application no 8,
to this esteemed Court and in reference to the struck out filing is that further Supporting Documents were prepared, but not been submitted as a result of the unsatisfactory conduct by the former Legal Counsel, therefore the Claimant’ continued blaming is not ethical.
2.4 The Defendants reminds that the Claimants failed to provide clear instructions
about a precise disclosure method in which they expect the Material evidence to be produced as per the Court order dated 4 Sep 2025 par (8.), nor did they offer any straightforward guidelines that could assist in saving time. It is important to highlight that the Defendants have nothing to conceal. Instead, the Claimants opted to argue over every single detail, portraying the Defendants as uncooperative parties.
2.5 The primary objective of Application no. 8 was to promptly assert the Defendants’ lack of
responsibility concerning the content generated by artificial intelligence specifically the amended defences presented by Lutf & Co., the former Legal Counsel of the Defendants but not the entire pleading as alleged, The application is titled ‘Urgent Application to Clarify Counsel Submission. ‘ Self-explanatory.
“His request to submit a revised defence constitutes an attempt to relitigate issues, seeking another bite at the cherry and undermining the process of fair justice for the Claimants, If permitted any further submissions by the Defendants should not delay the proceedings “
as seen thereon.
2.6 with utmost respect, this matter pertains to a Court ruling, and it is the esteemed judge
who possesses the authority to make a determination.
2.7 The content of Application no. 8 “Urgent Declaration” differs significantly from that of
Application no. 10, which presents a clear objection to the unreasonable statement of cost, and the ruling associated with it fall under the Court’s jurisdiction, While application no. 9, submitted by Lutf & Co., is solely their concern and made at their own discretion for reasons they deem necessary.
2.8 The Defendants have re-filed all pertinent details, encompassing every conceivable
piece of material evidence, including audio transcripts, exported chats, digital attachments from electronic conversations, and additional items, in response to the Claimant’s spurious doubts about the documents and evidence disclosed on 11 August 2025. This resubmission followed the court’s order granting liberty to re-plead, and all materials were filed on 19 September, comprising the same material evidence but with enhanced details and improved disclosure methods, of which the Claimant received a complete copy yet chose not to acknowledge.
2.9 The defendant wishes to note that the Amended Defences drafted and submitted by Lutf
& Co., the former Legal Counsel, did not meet the ethical standard mandated by the Court before the entire pleading been Stuck out so arguing about any details related to these erased filings is a non-sense and a true wast of time, now that with all due respect the conduct of the Claimant Legal Counsel addressed above is becoming concerning to.
Show Annexure E7
Show Annexure E6
OBJECTION TO THE CLAIMANT’S STATEMENT OF COSTS. Part 23.96, 23.98 CFI-066-2024/10 , 23-Sep-2025
Brief Summary
1. OBJECTION TO COSTS AS EXCESSIVE & DISPROPORTIONATE
- The Defendant highlights a 140% increase from a previously requested sanction of AED 300,000 to the current claim of over AED 735,000.
- The amount is argued to be disproportionate to the scope of the specific “Strike Out Application” for which costs were awarded.
2. THE FORMER LAWYER IS LIABLE
- The Defendant contends that the true responsibility for wasted costs lies with their former legal counsel, Lutfi & Co.
- It is stated that Lutfi & Co.’s negligent conduct, including the use of AI to draft deceptive filings, caused the procedural failures.
3. REQUEST FOR COURT RELIEF
Require the Claimants to provide evidence of their Legal representation fee agreement.
The Defendant asks the Court to:
Refuse the claimed amount of AED 735,229.25.
Perform a proportionate assessment of costs limited to the specific applications.
Order Lutfi & Co. to bear the costs for their mistakes.
1. This objection concerns the costs claimed by the Claimants following
The Court Order dated 7 August 2025 part (1 and 2) of (the “Order”) in which the First, Second and Third Defendant each to pay the Claimants their wasted costs arising from the amendments of the Defendant’s filed Defences, including any costs incurred by the Claimants with procedural
steps taken and applications filed pertaining to such amendments. And;
1.1 The Court Order dated 4 September 2025 which struck out the
Defendants’ Amended Defences and awarded the Claimant the costs of its Strike Out Application.
steps taken and applications filed pertaining to such amendments. And; Both of the respected Court Orders were pending the Court
Assessment and did not specify an exact sum to be paid by far.
2. The Claimants’ Legal Counsel, Naji Beidoun Advocates, has submitted
their Skeleton Argument dated 22 August, in which they asserted a request for the Court to mandate a sanction of AED 300,000 against the Defendants for the time that has been wasted alongside their request to strike out the filing made.
2.3 The total is increased by approximately 140%. This sudden and dramatic inflation renders the claim disproportionate
and unreasonableness. The Defendants respectfully submit that this abrupt escalation of AED 435,229 is exceedingly difficult to comprehend in any manner other than as an act of “taking the defendant’s money without a mercy.
2.1 Shortly after, in the Claimant’ Statement of Costs, which was served on
the Defendants via email on 9 September as a response to the respected Court order dated 4 September 2025, the amount has inexplicably surged to a total that exceeds AED 735,000, claimed to be the wasted costs with details as follows;
• Professional Fees : AED 722,275.50.
• Disbursements : AED 12,953.75,
3. Bases of the objection
3.1 The Court Orders specifically awards the “costs of the StrikeOut Application
and that the cost of wasted time arises from the amendments of defence” only.
3.2 The Defendants submit that the Claimant’s bill to include costs far exceeding the scope of a single application
and may incorporate the entirety of the Claimant’s legal representation and general conduct of the litigation. The First Defendant humbly remind that the assessment needs to be strictly confined to costs directly incurred as a result of the Strike Out Application and Amendments.
4. Lack of Evidential Basis
The Claimants did not yet support their demand by any material fact evidence such as earlier date email correspondence confirming a retainer agreement with the First Claimant to pay such amount when she engaged the legal counsel for her legal representation nor were there detailed time records, that would allow the Defendants or the Court to verify the reasonableness of the hours claimed or the rates applied.
4.1 An example of Reasonable Costs
For the purpose of clarity the first defendant has submitted additional documentation to support this contest, which includes an earlier dated Page of 3 6email received from a well known legal counsel that contains a quotation for Legal Representation of this very present court case. This quotation provides a realistic benchmark for reasonable legal costs in a case of this nature, which starkly contrasts with the Claimant’s claimed amount.
{ Supported in Annexure-E5 }
5. in respect to Rule 38, of the DIFC Court Rules, the Court possesses discretion, and various circumstances
are duly considered when it comes to the exercise of its authority regarding costs orders. Therefore, the First Defendant maintain true confidence in the justice of the Court.
6. The subsequent is Mindfully brought for the Court attention
There are facts substantiated by evidence indicating that;
A – The party suffering the most from extended proceedings is the First Defendant, among others, for the reasons outlined below: and
B – The truly responsible party of paying the cost of wasted time is the prevues legal Counsel ( Lutf & Co. Advocate and Legal Consultants )
appointed to represent the First, Second and Third Defendants before the Court in this Dispute.
7. Defendants’ Position
The Defendants have themselves suffered significant financial cost due to being involved in these proceedings.
7.1 The First Defendant is disbursing approximately AED 30,000 each
month to fulfill the loan repayments on behalf of the Claimants, while awaiting the final Court ruling, accumulating to over AED 500,000 in verified payments and further future repayments to prevent legal execution.
7.2 The First, Second and Third Defendants paid over AED 150,000 as direct cost for defending including, law firm fees, Court fees and other related expenses.
8 . The behaviour of the Legal Counsel acted on behalf of the Defendants
8.1The Court hereby decreed that the expenses incurred due to wasted time shall be borne by the Defendants, a ruling based on the negligent conduct of Lutf & Co. In particular, this pertains to the unaccounted submissions and filings presented by Ms. Harjeet Bhatia, the attorney responsible for drafting defenses with the aid of Artificial Intelligence, who included deceptive information directed towards the Court, the Claimants,and the Defendants themselves.
8.2 All material evidence is present, demonstrating that the actions in question were neither intended by the defendants nor authorized or
communicated to them.
{ Supported in Annexure-E1, E2, E3, E4 }
9. The Claimant’s Conduct
9.1 The Defendants also note that the Claimant’s recent request via email sent to the Registry to postpone the upcoming Case Management Conference from 3rd/7th of October until November 10 undermines their assertion of having suffered urgent and significant wasted time and cost.
9.2 Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of DIFC Courts The First Defendant intend to seek a costs order against the Claimants in a separate
application and to be filed at the right time.
10. Prayer for Relief
Pursuant to Part 38.6, 38.8 and Part 38.9 of The DIFC Court’ Rules, The First Defendant sincerely request that the Court be pleased to:
(A) Refuse the Claimant’s wasted costs in the sum of AED 735,229.25; and
(B) Order a suitable assessment of costs limited to those incurred for the Strike Out Application and amendments; and
(C) Assess the costs at a sum that is proportionate and reasonable, significantly below the amount claimed; and
(D) Order Lutf & CO., to bear the costs incurred due to their own mistakes on behalf of the First, Second, and Third Defendants.
(E) Order the Claimants to produce and submit the email that contains the initial agreement and quotation previously communicated with their respective client, the First Claimant.
(F) Make any such further order as the Court sees fit.
Draft Defence with Counterclaim – First Defendant, 19-Sep-2025 (P16/01A)
1. In summary : Full Disclosure of Liabilities
- The First Defendant submitted he fully disclosed the company’s business loan to the claimant’s broker before the sale.
- The purchase price was reduced by AED 1 million to account for this loan.
- The First Claimant signed two contracts explicitly agreeing to purchase the company “as is,” including all liabilities.
2. Refutation of Key Allegations
- No Concealment: He provided bank statements and documents showing the loan. The buyer conducted due diligence and never requested a warranty against debt.
- No Breach of Contract: He did not breach a “non-compete” clause, as his personal work was never restricted. He also had the contractual right to manage company funds until the share transfer was fully paid.
- Justified Bank Access Restriction: Limiting online bank access during the transition was a security measure agreed upon in the contract.
3. Counterclaim for Reimbursement
He requests the Court order the Claimants to reimburse him for these payments and assume full responsibility for the remaining loan balance.
To avoid legal action from the bank, the First Defendant has been making the loan repayments himself, totaling AED 500,000 to date.
Show File
Notice of change of legal representative – First Defendant, 2-Sep-2025
the Date of Submission on the portal
Application notice – Urgent, CFI-066-2024/8, 1-Sep-2025
Brief Overview
The First Defendant submitted this urgent application prior to Court Order Dated 4 Sep to address serious issues with his former legal counsel, Lutfie & Co.
The First Defendant denied authorizing his former lawyers to use AI-generated content in any court submissions and stated he never reviewed or signed the defence memorandums they filed, except for his official Affidavit.
The First Defendant confirmed that the supporting documents are true and exists in his emails and phone, but lawyer failed to submit all provided evidence, deeming some attachments “unnecessary.”
The First Defendant seeks permission to change his legal representative and requested one week to resubmit an improved defence.
He requested a reduction of the unspecified costs judgment and argued that the claimants’ subsequent demand of 300,000 Dirhams is unrealistic and would cause him severe financial hardship.
an acknowledgment of that the drafted defense and counterclaim submitted
by my legal representative are deficient in clarity, perplexing, and fail to satisfy the ethical standards mandated by the court.
1 – Specific denial of authorization for AI-generated content
By all means, the following is hereby denied:
A – I have never authorized the appointed legal counsel ( Lutfie & Co ) or or any member of their firm represented me (the first defendant) and (the third defendant) in this esteemed court to utilize content generated by “artificial intelligence” in any document throughout the proceedings, nor to present any misleading information or false facts at any time. {Evidenced in E-1}
B – I have not reviewed nor signed any of the memorandums of defence submitted by my legal representative at any time, except for the ordered Affidavit was duly sign by myself without a chose. {Evidenced in E-2}
C – after many requests to my legal representative to share the drafts with me for refining prior to submission, I happened to find the same already submitted on the e-registry Portal in a surprising fashion.
2. – Affirmation of underlying evidence
While I confirm that all of contents in the supporting documents, exhibits, and evidence submitted on my behalf are indeed true and accessible via my email account, personal phone’s “WhatsApp,” and other electronic data storage drives but only been submitted in a confusing method and gradual disclosure.
2.1 – Notingthat certain attachments, including audio transcripts, were not submitted and it is important to mention that these were provided to my legal representative but were never submitted as these deemed to be unnecessary as per my legal representative.
2.2 – In regards to the respected claimant’s remarks regarding the submitted supporting documents, evidence, contracts, and statements, I wish to clarify the following:
A – Requested Loan Agreements;
I have disclosed all agreements currently in my possession, extracted from emails I received from RakBank and any further official Loan contracts requested by the claimant’s representative can only be obtained through a direct court order addressing RakBank.
B – Conversations with Mr. Aldo, Mr. Sokol, and Ms. Marsela of Platinum Real Estate;
I have submitted the conversations with best module possible within my limited skills, the further requested audio voice notes exchanged during these discussions can be transcribed and submitted along with the complete attachments, should permission be granted.
C – Transactions to DIFC Investments;
The requested invoices related to these transactions are accessible in the DIFC Client Portal of the second claimant, to which only the first claimant currently has access, while my archived data contains a limited number of these.
D – Proof of payment concerning the establishment of the second defendant is presently in my possession and can be submitted if allowed, noting that it was shared with my lawyer but not formally submitted.
E – Witness statement from the salon receptionist;
Ms. Danica confirms that the company liabilities were disclosed to Mr. Aldo through printed copies of the salon’s bank statements that she handed the same by herself.
3 – With the utmost respect, I never attempted to challenge the court
or disrupt this preceding in any manner that could be construed as such; my intentions were never to withhold any requested material nor to cause any delay or waste any time, herein, I express my disappointment with the legal counsel who has managed my defense up to this point, and I kindly request your valuable permission to change my law firm and to resubmit a defense that can provide clarity and fulfill my position in this dispute.
4 – I am full of faith that I have done no wrong to anybody and still till the date paying
the monthly installments of the second claimant’s Loan with total paid post the sale of shares amounting over 500,000 Dirhams and I hope that means something to this Honorable court, I possess all necessary evidence to substantiate my stance..
5 – Therefore, I respectfully seek permission to change my legal
representative and request a maximum of one week on my cost to resubmit an improved version of my defense, which will not significantly alter the content but will provide clarification and enhance transparency including my signature on it as one and final chance to assist the court in better understanding my position.
5.1 – Moreover, in light of your wise advice during the CMC back in March to secure legal
representation for this matter I promptly appointed Lutfie & Co., made the necessary payments, signed the contract, and awaited their response,I have also emailed them to emphasize the urgency of commencing the drafting of the defense memorandum before it becomes too late. {EvidencedinE-3}
5.2 – Despite this yet still subsequent delays occurred,I resent multiple reminders for them to review
the Claim Form and prepare the requisite supporting documents and evidence. but they remained inactive. Consequently, on June 28 2025, I issued anotice of contract termination due to their failure to prepare any of the necessary documents for disclosure. only on 30 June prior to the CMC in July they submitted a notice of a legal change on the E-Registry followed by application seeking leave to amend the defense, which could have been prepared months earlier.
{ Evidenced in E-4}
5.3 – Your Honor, I find myself a victim of selecting an unsuitable law firm,
and I am considering submitting a claim against them within a few days to recover the damages they have inflicted upon my position in this proceeding by submitting numerous poorly drafted documents, with unclear evidence, and provided fewer documents than what was requested by the claimant as well as prolonging the procedure for unexplained reasons.
6. MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
I, the first defendant, with utmost respect for this Court, files this memorandum to humbly request a reduction of the judgment amount. This request is made not to challenge the court’s decision but to present a significant financial hardship that makes the current judgment unduly burdensome.
6.1 – STATEMENT OF FACTS
A – On 7 Aug 2025, this respected court issued a judgment against the three Defendants to pay a compensation for the waste of time of the claimant without specifying the sum.
B – Defendants accepted the Court’s decision and takes full responsibility for the harm caused to the Plaintiff only and specifically the delay in time into the proceeding.
C – The purpose of this motion is to elucidate the Defendant’s current financial circumstances, which were not fully presented during the prior proceedings.
7 – ARGUMENT
Defendant Faces Extreme Financial Hardship. The current judgment did not specify and exact amount to be paid but the respected claimants later on demanded 300,000 Dirhams which seems to be a bit unrealistic amount imposes a severe financial burden that the Defendants cannot meet without experiencing extreme hardship.
Therefore I can request this on court to take that into consideration
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court to
1 . Permit the law firm change and one more submission of clear Defense and counterclaim within one week.
2 . grant this Motion and enter an order reducing the monetary judgment to a sum that is fair and commensurate with Defendant’s ability to pay.
Show File
Applications by Second and third DEFENDANTS
Skeleton argument, 5-Nov-2025
Brief details
The First Defendant rely on the attached Skeleton Arguments for the CMC scheduled on the 10th on November 2025, The First Defendant rely on the DIFC Law of Obligation, DIFC Companies Law and the DIFC Contract Law.
Application number, CFI-066-2024/9, 19-Sep-2025
Brief details
1. Dispute Over Claimed Costs
- The Defendants argue that the court has not yet ordered a specific amount to be paid, despite the Claimants filing a statement of costs for AED 735,229.25.
- They state the final sum is for the court to decide and find the Claimants’ requested amount “unreasonable.”
- They reserve the right to challenge the costs and request evidence that the sums were actually paid.
2. Clarification on Change of Legal Representation
- The Defendants assert they have properly notified all parties that they are no longer represented by Lutfi & Co. via multiple emails and an eRegistry application.
- They have requested that all future communications be sent to them directly.
3. Reason for Self-Representation
The Defendants explain that the 20-day deadline to submit a new defense was insufficient time to hire, brief, and engage a new law firm to prepare a professional submission.
Show File
Draft Defence without Counterclaim – Third Defendant, 19-Sep-2025
Brief details
1. Core Argument: No Involvement in Disputed Agreement
- The Third Defendant states the share sale of the Second Claimant was exclusively between the First Claimant and the First Defendant.
- She asserts she was not a party to the relevant agreements, played no role in the negotiations, and did not sign any related contracts.
2. About the Past Share Transfers
- Shares were temporarily transferred to her to help manage the company while the First Defendant was working on a project in Saudi Arabia.
- The shares were transferred back when that project was put on hold. She argues these past transactions are separate and irrelevant to the current dispute with the Claimants.
3. Defense Against Allegations
- She is a lawful business owner and hairstylist; her business (“Hair by Julia”) is a different line of work.
- Payments to her personal account were legitimate salary and commission payments, not improper transactions.
- Her employment contract with the Second Claimant had no post-employment restrictions.
4. Relief Sought
The Third Defendant asks the court to dismiss all claims against her and order the Claimants to pay her costs for defending the proceedings.
Notice of change of legal representative – Third Defendant, 9-Sep-2025
the Date of Submission on the portal
Applications by CLAIMANTS
Application number CFI-066-2024/8, 26-Sep-2025
CLAIMANTS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION NO. CFI-066-2024/8
1. Purpose of the Response
- The Claimants are complying with a court order to respond to Application 08, filed by the First Defendant acting in person.
- They reserve the right to respond to other, overlapping applications separately.
2. Key Argument: Shared Responsibility for Failures
- The First Defendant claims that all procedural failures and resulting costs orders are solely the fault of his former legal counsel, Lutfi & Co.
- The Claimants strongly contest this, arguing that both the Defendants and Lutfi & Co. are jointly responsible for the delays, non-compliance with court orders, and procedural irregularities.
3. Claimants’ Counter-Arguments to Key Defences
- Responsibility for Legal Filings: A litigant cannot disclaim responsibility for pleadings filed by their duly instructed lawyer. The Defendants are ultimately liable for the defence memoranda submitted on their behalf.
- Incomplete Disclosure of Documents: The First Defendant admits to having emails and documents from RAK Bank and audio recordings but failed to disclose them fully. The Claimants argue this is a “wilful non-compliance” with a previous court order for disclosure.
- The use of the word “extracted” suggests the disclosure was selective and partial.
- Signed Affidavit: The First Defendant signed a court-ordered affidavit with a “statement of truth.” The Claimants state he had the opportunity to object to its contents before signing, and if the contents were false, it is a serious issue.
4. Allegations Against Lutfi & Co.
- The law firm failed to notify the court of their appointment for over three months and failed to assist the Defendants in meeting their court-ordered obligations.
- They are accused of mismanagement, inactivity, and the unauthorized use of AI, which led to the citing of inaccurate cases and further delays.
5. Relief Sought by the Claimants
The Claimants ask the court to:
- Strike out Application No. 08.
- Confirm that the First, Second, and Third Defendants are liable for costs, and make Lutfi & Co. jointly and severally liable.
- Order the Defendants to pay the Claimants’ indemnity costs (higher level of costs) for these applications.
- Alternatively, issue a “wasted costs order” directly against Lutfi & Co. for their professional failures.
6. Position on First Defendant’s Requests
- The Claimants oppose the First Defendant’s request to submit a revised defence, viewing it as an unfair “second bite at the cherry” that would further delay the proceedings.
- They also request that any application to reduce costs due to financial hardship be dismissed.
CLAIMANTS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION made by Lutfi & Co Advocates dated 12 September 2025.
1. Improper Change of Representation
- The Claimants state the Defendants have not followed the correct procedure (Part 37 of the DIFC Courts Rules) to formally change their legal representative.
2. Clarification on Wasted Costs Liability
- The Claimants have filed a Statement of Costs for AED 735,229.25 due to wasted costs from previous hearings.
- It is essential to clarify who the new legal representatives are so that liability for these costs is clear and the Claimants can be indemnified.
3. Cause of Wasted Costs
The costs arose directly from the conduct of the Defendants’ former lawyers, Lutfi & Co., including the unauthorized use of AI in pleadings and reliance on fictitious legal authorities.
Statement of costs, 9-Sep-2025
Applications by Lutfi & Co. Advocates
Application number CFI-066-2024/9, 11-Sep-2025
Part 37.11 & 37.12
The applicant intends to apply for an order that
Lutfi & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants hereby apply to withdraw from acting on record in these proceedings. The First Defendant has expressly indicated in his Urgent Application dated Sep 1, 2025, and his email dated Sep 2, 2025, addressed to the DIFC Registry, that he no longer wishes Lutfi & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants to represent him in his personal capacity as the First Defendant and the Second and Third Defendants.