Salah Documents

In this Defence, unless otherwise stated:
1.1. Al references to paragraph numbers are references to the paragraph numbers in the
Claimant’s Particulars of Claim dated 13 May 2026;
1.2. References to sections are references to the numbered headings of the Particulars of Claim
and paragraphs beneath that numbered heading;
1.3. The defined terms and headings in the Particulars of Claim are adopted for ease of
reference only and without admission as to the appropriateness of such defined terms or headings;
1.4. Where a fact, matter, assertion or alegation is “not admitted” then the First Defendant is
unable to admit or deny that fact, matter, assertion or alegation and the Claimant is put to proof of the
same;
1.5. Where an alegation is said to be too vague or unparticularised, the First Defendant
contends that in breach of RDC 2014 17.17 the Particulars of Claim do not contain a concise statement
of the facts on which the claimant relies that is sufficient for her to understand the case being made by
the Claimants;
1.6. Text in quotation marks and italics is a direct quotation from the document referred to.

Save as appears below the First Defendant joins issue with the Claimants on the alegations in the
Particulars of Claim as if each alegation in it was separately denied.

The First Defendant is and was at the material time a legal advisor engaged by the Second Defendant
to provide legal services to its clients.

4.1. it is admitted that the Second Defendant offered to provide legal services to the First
Claimant by its letter dated 4 October 2024 (“the Retainer Letter”);
4.2. the Second Defendant’s retainer letter provided that, “Our work will begin upon receipt of a
signed copy of this engagement letter and the receipt of the fees subject to the fee payment terms as
herein below stated”
4.3. there were accordingly two pre-conditions to the Second Defendant providing its services to
the First Claimant or the CFI Defendants:
(1) the First Claimant needed to return a signed copy of the Retainer Letter; and
(2) the First Defendant needed to pay the initial fee of AED 50,000 which was due on the signing of
the engagement letter;
4.4. the First Claimant did not sign and return the Retainer Letter to indicate his acceptance to
the terms of the Second Defendant’s Retainer Letter until 13 March 2025;
4.5. it is denied that the Claimant retained the First Defendant. She is not a party to the
agreement contained in or evidence by the Retainer Letter;
4.6. it is denied that the Second Claimant retained either of the Defendants. The Retainer Letter
was addressed only to the First Claimant and only the First Claimant signed the Retainer Letter;
4.7. by the time the First Defendant returned the Retainer Letter to the Second Defendant the
CFI-066-2024 Proceedings were already significantly advanced in that:

(1) the parties to the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings had filed and served statements of case;
14 April 2025 AED 12,000 AED 38,000
18 April 2025 AED 5,000 AED 33,000
26 April 2025 AED 4,000 AED 29,000
5 May 2025 AED 10,000 AED 19.000
7 July 2025 AED 10,000 AED 9,000
14 July 2025 AED 5,000 AED 4,000
17 July 2025 AED 5,000 None

(2) a case management conference had been held before H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst on
Monday 3 March 2025 with the order made at the hearing issued on 18 April 2025;

(3) at that hearing the CFI Defendants agreed that by 21 April 2025 they would provide standard
production of documents and specifically produce certain bank statements and loan agreements
(“the 18 April 2025 Disclosure Order”);

(4) the CFI Claimants had filed their witness statements for trial but the CFI Defendants had not
filed their witness statements for trial;

4.8. further, although the First Claimant sent a signed copy of the Retainer Letter to the Second
Defendant on 13 March 2025 he did not make payment of the initial fee of AED 50,000 on the date he
provided the signed the Retainer Letter;

4.9. by his email sent on 14 April 2025 at 3:20pm to Karina Manaf (“Ms Manaf”), a legal
assistant engaged by the Second Defendant, the First Claimant promised that he would make full
payment to the Second Defendant of the sum of AED 50,000 by the end of the week commencing 14
April 2025;

4.10. contrary to the assurance given to Ms Manaf, the First Claimant did not make full payment of
the sum of AED 50,000 by the end of the week commencing 14 April 2025 but instead made a series of
unstructured ad hoc payments between 14 April 2025 and 17 July 2025 as set out below:
Date Payment Balance Due

4.11. Accordingly, the conditions precedent in the Retainer Letter for the Second Defendant to
commence work for the First Claimant were not satisfied until 17 July 2025;

4.12. The allegation in paragraph 2.1 that express representations were made to the Claimants on
which they relied on is too vague to respond to

5.1. as stated above the allegation that representations or assurances were made to the
Claimants is too vague to respond to;

5.2. it is accepted that by the terms of the Retainer Agreement the First Defendant was
designated by the Second Defendant to work on the First Claimant’s matter along with Ms Manaf;

5.3. For the avoidance of doubt, it is denied that the First Defendant assumed a responsibility to
the Claimants or either of them by reason of the Second Defendant’s designation of her to work on the
First Claimant’s matter.

6.1. By the terms of the Retainer Letter by the Second Defendant agreed that it would provide
the following services:

“1. Review of case files, documents, and evidence provided by the client.
2. Review of the legal complaint and any motions or claims filed by the opposing party.
3. Assessment of any initial legal risks and potential outcomes.
4. Holding meetings with the client
5. Drafting and serving acknowledgement of service to DIFC on behalf of the client.
6. Draft and file initial pleadings, including statements of defense to the claim filed by Klesta Eshja
7. To represent the client in all DIFC court proceedings.
8. Providing timely updates to the client.”

6.2. Save as appears above paragraph 2.3 is denied.

7.1. it is denied that the First Defendant owed the Defendants any contractual duties. The First
Defendant is not a party to the Retainer Agreement;

7.2. it is denied that the First Defendant owed the Claimants any duty of care as she did not
assume a responsibility to them;

7.3. if, which is denied, the First Defendant owed the Claimants a duty of care the duty was only
a duty to exercise reasonable care;

7.4. it is denied that the First Defendant owed the Claimants fiduciary duties;

7.5. the duties described in paragraph 2.4 are not in nature of fiduciary duties;

7.6. save that the First Defendant admits that the Second Defendant was party to the Retainer
Agreement the First Defendant does not plead to the duties the Claimants aleged were owed by the
Second Defendant as the alegation do not concern the claim against her.

8.1. the Retainer Agreement was between the First Claimant and the Second Defendant only;

8.2. it is admitted that the total fee payable under the Retainer Agreement was AED 110,000;

8.3. as stated above the initial fee of AED 50,000 was due on the signing of the Retainer Letter
but was not in fact paid in ful until 17 July 2025;

8.4. it is agreed that the First Claimant was also responsible to reimburse the Second Defendant
for al out-of-pocket expenses.

9.1. it is admitted that the First Claimant sent the email dated 18 March 2025 produced as
Annexure 2 to the Particulars of Claim;

9.2. the First Claimant’s email dated 18 March 2025 was a response to a request sent by Ms
Manaf on 18 March 2025 at 11:21 that the First Claimant send her information and materials including
“any additional documents related to the case”;

9.3. it is denied (in so far as it be aleged) that the documents attached to the email produced at
Annexure 2 represented al the documents necessary for the purpose of conducting the defence in the
CFI-066-2024 Proceedings. In particular:

(1) the First Claimant did not reveal that the CFI Claimants had made a request to produce on 29
April 2025; and

(2) between late June and early August 20205 the First Claimant provided the CFI Counsel with
many further documents that he had not previously provided to them.

9.4. the First Defendant is unable to admit or deny whether the Claimants were prepared to
supply additional material upon request. Ms Manaf specificaly requested that the First Claimant
provided her with “any additional documents related to the case” but was only supplied with the
materials listed in the email exhibited as Annexure 2 to the Particulars of Claim;

9.5. The second sentence in paragraph 2.6 is too vague for the Frist Defendant to plead to, but
for the avoidance of doubt, it is accepted that the First Claimant’s email to Ms Manaf send on 28 June
2025 at 5:30 referred to the 18 April 2025 Disclosure Order.

10.1. It is admitted that the First Claimant send emails to Ms Manaf on 5 June 2025 and 15 June
2025;

10.2. At the date of these emails the First Claimant was sti l to pay the Second Defendant the sum
of AED 19,000 to make ful payment of the initial fee that was due under the terms of the Retainer
Agreement;

10.3. It is denied that either email sent by the First Claimant referred to the 18 April 2025
Disclosure Order.

11.1. it is accepted that Ms Manaf sent an email to the First Claimant on 30 June 2025 at 12:05pm
in which she expressed the view that the First Claimant had complied with the 18 April 2025 Disclosure
Order;

11.2. Ms Manaf’s email of 30 June 2025 described the steps which the Second Defendant
intended to take on behalf of the First Claimant in the period up to a case management conference on
17 July 2025 including the filing of an amended defence;

11.3. the CFI Claimants’ Counsel subsequently complained that the documents provided by the
First Defendant pursuant to 18 April 2025 Disclosure Order had been redacted, altered, or amended
and (contrary to RDC 2014 28.4) were not in their original format;

11.4. Save as appears above paragraph 3.2 is denied.

12.1. on 30 June 2025 the CFI Counsel held a meeting by Microsoft Teams with the First Claimant;

12.2. after the meeting the First Defendant filed a notice of change of legal representative for the
Second Defendant to represent the First Claimant in the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings on 30 June 2025;

12.3. the First Defendant filed a notice of change of legal representative for the Second Defendant
to represent the Second Claimant in the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings on 3 July 2025;

12.4. it is denied that there was any delay by the CFI Counsel in filing any notice of change of legal
representatives prior to 30 June 2025 because the First Claimant failed to pay the Second Defendant’s
initial fee of AED 50,000 as required by the terms of the Retainer Agreement and the Second
Defendant was not obliged to begin work on the matter until the initial fee was paid in ful;

12.5. any step taken by the CFI Counsel prior to 30 June 2025 was taken in anticipation of the First
Claimant complying with his obligations to pay the initial fee of AED 50,000 in ful and so that the
Retainer Agreement could be performed in accordance with its terms thereafter.

14.1. it is denied that the CFI Defendants were not consulted regarding the draft amended
defence;

14.2. before the draft amended defence was filed the CFI Counsel discussed the proposed
amended defence with the First Claimant by WhatsApp messages, telephone cals and in meetings.
The First Claimant was aware of al the matters that were going to be included in the amended
defence;

14.3. It is accepted that the CFI Defendants were not provided with a copy of the draft amended
defence before it was filed but they were able to access what had been filed on their behalf via the
DIFC Court’s eRegistry.

15.1. the supporting documents annexed to the draft amended defence filed on 10 July 2025 were
reproduced by the CFI Counsel from documents provided to the CFI Counsel by the First Defendant;

15.2. many of these documents were provided by the First Defendant as attachments to WhatsApp
messages he sent to Ms Manaf on 9 July 2025;

15.3. it was the understanding of the CFI Counsel that the First Claimant had provided with al
documents which the CFI Defendants wished to rely on in with the amended defence.

16.1. the judge indicated that he was inclined to grant the CFI Defendants permission to the amend
their defence rather than leave the court dealing with the “unchartered waters” of the statement of case
which the CFI Defendants had filed whilst acting as litigants in person;

16.2. The CFI Defendants’ existing statement(s) of case did not enable the court to identify the
issues between the parties with ease because:

(1) the Defence filed by the First Claimant on 21 November 2024 did not comply with RDC 2014
17.26 (in that it did not identify which a legations were admitted, which alegations the CFI Claimants
were required to prove and which alegations were admitted) and 17.36 (in that it was not out in
separate consecutively numbered paragraphs, and was not as brief and concise as possible but
instead consisted of extensive assertions and argument);

(2) the Defence was filed with a document headed “Memorandum of Defence – First Defendant”
which also failed to comply with RDC 2014 17.26 and 17.36;

(3) On 25 November 2024 a defence was filed on behalf of the Second Claimant. The document
was brief but did not comply with RDC 17.26 and 17.36;

(4) On 17 December 2024 the First Claimant filed a further statement of case described as a
“Particulars of Claim” which incorporated the “Memorandum of Defence – First Defendant” by
reference as the First Claimant’s “detailed explanation” regarding his defence. Contrary to RDC
2014 17.40 the “Memorandum of Defence” contained numerous screenshots of documents which
ought to have been served separately in their original format rather than as an image embedded into
the statement of case;

(5) On 27 March 2025 the First Claimant filed a further statement of case described as “Reply to
Defence”. The Reply to Defence also failed to comply with RDC 2014 17.26, 17.36 and 17.40;

16.3. Counsel for the CFI Claimants asserted that the documents disclosed by the First Claimant in
the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings had been redacted or amended and were not in their original format;

16.4. In the light of the criticisms made by the CFI Claimant’s Counsel, Counsel for the CFI
Defendants requested a short period of further time to review the documents already filed for any
shortcomings.

17.1. it is accepted that the CFI Counsel drafted the documents produced as Annexure July Wit.
Stats to the Particulars of Claim;

17.2. it is denied that the statements contained highly irregular admissions relating to the CFI
Defendants’ production of documents . The time for standard production of documents had passed.
The CFI Defendants wished to rely on documents they had not produced in time and required the
court’s permission to rely on further documents. The CFI Defendants therefore needed to acknowledge
that permission to address outstanding production of documents was required and explain why
permission should be granted;

17.3. The witness statements were prepared to address the CFI Defendants’ failures to produce
documents in accordance with RDC 2014 Part 28 and to mitigate the consequences of their failure to
advance their defences in compliance with RDC 2014 and the 18 April 2025 Disclosure Order.

18.1. It is denied that CFI Counsel compeled the CFI Defendants to sign the witness statements
produced as “Annexure July Wit Stats” to the Particulars of Claim;

18.2. The witness statements were sent to the First Claimant by Ms Manaf by WhatsApp on 24
July 2025 with the request, “Please sign these documents ASAP”;

18.3.The witness statements were returned by the First Claimant to Ms Manaf by WhatsApp the
same day with the statements of truth endorsed with the CFI Defendants’ signatures. The First
Claimant did not make any comment regarding the contents of the witness statements when he sent
them back.

19.1. By the time of witness statements were prepared it was apparent to the CFI Counsel that:

(1) the CFI Defendant had failed to address a request to produce made by the CFI Claimants on 29
April 2025;

(2) the CFI Defendants had not produced documents in their original format as required by RDC
2014 28.4;

(3) contrary to the communications between the First Claimant and Ms Manaf on 18 March 2025
the CFI Defendants were in possession of further documents that they wished to rely on but had not
produced to the CFI Claimants in accordance with the order of 18 April 2025 and RDC 2014 28.15;

19.2. So far as the First Defendant is aware these matters were not known to Ms Manaf when she
wrote the email of 30 June 2025 referred to in paragraph 3.2.

that that “further or better Supporting Documents to meet the Court’s
directions” could have been prepared or produced is too vague to be responded to. Without prejudice to the
First Defendant’s case that paragraph 4.4(b) is too vague:

20.1. The Court’s directions in the 18 April 2025 Disclosure Order fel to be complied by the CFI
Defendants with before the CFI Counsel were acting for the CFI Defendants;

20.2. The delay in the CFI Counsel acting for CFI Defendants was caused by the First Claimant’s
failure to:

(1) return a signed copy of the Retainer Letter;

(2) pay the initial fee due under the Retainer Agreement in ful;

20.3. Prior to acting for the CFI Defendants Ms Manaf had asked the First Claimant to provide any
“additional documents related” to the case but the First Defendant only provided those documents
attached to his email produced as Annexure 2 to the Particulars of Claim.

21.1. By email sent on 30 August 2025 at 5:17pm the First Claimant wrote to the First Defendant
and Ms Manaf as folows:

“I would love to kindly notify you that I respectfully request you to not submit any further
applications on the Difc registry without sharing a draft copy of the subject document with me
beforehand and allowing me to review it and potentially amend it then approve it vis a written
reply.
I admire your great expertise and dedication, but it is better to make sure small details are included
in a proper method and submitted with clarity.”

21.2. It is denied that the First Claimant gave any similar instruction to the CFI Counsel before the
amended defences were filed on 28 July 2025;

21.3. The CFI Counsel by WhatsApp, telephone cal and meetings discussed with the First
Claimant al the matters that were going to be included in the amended defence;

21.4. Ms Manaf continued to receive instructions from the First Claimant regarding the amended
defences of the CFI Defendants up to and beyond the time for filing the proposed further amendments
(5pm on 28 July 2025) under the order issued on 18 July 2025;

21.5. It is accepted that due to constraints of time the CFI Counsel filed the amended defences
without the First Claimant reviewing the documents but he was able to access what had been filed via
the DIFC Court’s eRegistry

21.6. It is noted that whilst the First Claimant has complained about the legal citations in the
amended defences he has never disputed that the facts stated in the amended defences regarding the
dispute with the CFI Claimants were true.

22.1. by order issued on 7 August 2025 folowing a further case management conference held
before H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst on 31 July 2025 the CFI Defendants were granted permission to
amend their defences in accordance with the statements of case filed on or about 28 July 2025 (“the 7
August 2025 Order”).

22.2. the documents filed by the CFI Counsel on or about 4 August 2025 were the statements of
case in respect of which permission had now been granted by the 7 August 2025 Order.

23.1. Paragraph 2 of the 7 August 2025 Order provided for the First Claimant to pay the CFI
Defendants to pay the CFI Claimants their wasted costs arising from the amendments to his defence,
including any costs incurred by them with procedural steps taken and applications filed pertaining to
such amendments. Paragraph 3 of the 7 August 2025 Order provided for the CFI Defendant other than
the First Claimant to pay the CFI Claimants wasted costs arising with procedural steps taken and
applications filed pertaining to the amendments to their defences (“the First Adverse Costs Order”);

23.2. The First Adverse Costs order reflected RDC 2014 18.27 which provides that the usual rule
is that a party applying for an amendment wil be responsible for the costs of and arising from the
amendment;

23.3. Accordingly, the cause the First Adverse Costs order was not any act or omission of the CFI
Counsel but the failure of the CFI Defendants whilst acting as litigants in person to file defences which:

(1) Complied with the RDC 2014;
(2) Provided a properly structured and clear response to the CFI Claimant’s alegations;
(3) Produced al the supporting documentation on which the CFI Defendants wished to rely on with
their statement of case; and
(4) Properly addressed the positions of the CFI Defendants other than the First Claimant

23.4. Any alegation that the CFI Counsel were responsible for procedural irregularities or defective
filings is for the avoidance of doubt denied;

23.5. Paragraph 4 of the 7 August 2025 Order further ordered the First Claimant to file and service
and affidavit in relation to his production of documents. The order folowed an application by the CFI
Claimants issued on 16 July 2025 in which complaint was made that the First Claimant had failed to
provide documents in the original format contrary to RDC 2014 28.4 but had instead provided extracts
and incomplete versions of the documents he had been ordered to produce;

23.6. Paragraph 7 of the 7 August 2025 Order directed the First Defendant to make standard
disclosure of the documents referred to in his amended Defence and the documents referred to in the
CFI Claimant’s application dated 21 July 2025.

23.7. Save as appears above paragraph 4.6 is denied

24.1. So far as the First Defendant can recal the First Claimant was present for the hearing on 31
July 2025 and became aware of the First Adverse Costs Order at the time it was made;

24.2. As stated above, the cause of the First Adverse Costs Order was the manner in which the
CFI Defendants had conducted the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings before the CFI Counsel acted for them.

it is agreed that with the assistance of the CFI Counsel the First Defendant filed
an affidavit addressing the matters required by paragraph 4 of the 7 August 2025 Order.

The filing was a duplication of a previous filing

The filing was a duplication of a previous filing

28.1. The First Defendant is unable to admit or deny what the CFI Defendants reviewed or when
they reviewed it;

28.2. It is admitted that the amended defences filed by the CFI Counsel contained references to
decisions of the DIFC Courts with incorrect citations (“the Reference Error”);

28.3. It is further admitted that amended defences filed by the CFI Counsel contained one or more
reference to a decision of the DIFC Courts which the CFI Claimants’ Counsel stated they were unable
to verify through their researches (“the Hallucination Issue”);

28.4. The First Defendant was not personaly involved in the drafting of the CFI Defendants’
amended defences and does not have personal knowledge of how the Reference Error or the
Halucination Issue arose. The First Defendant accepts that H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst, in his
schedule of reasons issued on 24 March 2026, found that the defences had been prepared with the
assistance of artificial inte ligence;

28.5. The First Defendant was not aware of any issue with the amended defences until about 13
August 2025 when Counsel acting for the CFI Claimants requested certain authorities referred to in the
amended defences which they said could not be located. On 14 August 2025 Ms Manaf replied to the
Counsel for the CFI Claimants. Ms Manaf’s response is produced as Annexure 7 to the Particulars of
Claim and stated that, “In reviewing the authorities, we have identified that certain case citations in
the pleadings contain clerical citation errors. The substance, arguments, and reliance remain entirely
unchanged; the amendments required are limited to correcting the case names and/or neutral
citations for accuracy” and provided links to cases referred to in the defences. Ms Manaf provided the
same explanation to the First Defendant;

28.6. It is denied that the First Defendant failed to disclose the communications between Ms Manaf
and the CFI Claimant’s counsel. So far as she was concerned the issue had been addressed by Ms
Manaf;

28.7. The First Defendant did not learn that there were concerns regarding the amended defences
that were more extensive that the Reference Error until after the service of the CFI Claimants’
application dated 25 August 2025 to strike out the CFI Defendants’ defences.

29.1. It is admitted that the First Claimant sent the email dated 29 August 2025 to Ms Manaf which
is exhibited as Annexure 7 to the Particulars of Claim;

29.2. The First Defendant proposed a meeting with the First Claimant on 1 September 2025 at 4pm
to discuss the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings;

29.3. It is admitted that Ms Manaf requested that the meeting be re-scheduled to 2 September
2025 at 4pm but the First Claimant did not directly answer that request. Instead, the First Claimant and
Ms Manaf exchanged a series of messages by WhatsApp on 1 September 2025 during which Ms
Manaf addressed the First Defendant’s misconceptions that an immediate order for the payment AED
300,000 had been made and that the First Claimant was now the subject of a travel ban;

29.4. Although the CFI Counsel sought a meeting with him, the First Claimant, did not take up that
opportunity but instead filed an “urgent application” to declare his dissatisfaction with the CFI Counsel
on 2 September 2025. Exhibited to the “urgent application” were communications between the First
Defendant and CFI Counsel which had the potential to damage the CFI Defendants’ conduct of the CFI
066-2024 Proceedings. In particular, the First Claimant disclosed as Exhibit E3 an exchange of emails
which showed that:

(1) he had been issued with the Retainer Letter on 4 October 2024;

(2) he did not return the Retainer Letter until 13 March 2025;

(3) Ms Manaf had asked the First Claimant to provide any additional documents related to the case
on 18 March 2025;

(4) on 7 April 2025 Ms Manaf had reminded the First Claimant that payment of the initial fee of AED
50,000 was due;

(5) The First Defendant was stil due to pay at least AED 20,000 of the initial fee on 5 June 2025;

29.5. in effect the First Defendant thereby disclosed to the CFI Claimants and the court that he had
conducted the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings as a litigant in person despite contacting the CFI Counsel at
the beginning of the proceedings but had not engaged and paid for the CFI Counsel to represent the
CFI Defendants until about June 2025 at the earliest;

29.6. it is admitted that the CFI Defendants filed a notice of change of legal representative on or
about 2 September 2025;

29.7. it is denied that the CFI Defendants’ act of filing a notice of change of legal representative or
his urgent application could affect the outcome of the hearing on 28 August 2025 for the benefit of the
CFI Defendants or could improve their position in the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings generaly.

30.1. following the hearing on 28 August 2025, the DIFC Court made the order issued on 4
September 2025 which is produced as an Annexure to the Particulars of Claim;

and
30.2. by that order:

(1) the CFI Claimants’ application to strike out the CFI Defendants’ amended defences was
granted;

(2) the CFI Defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the strike out application (“the Second
Adverse Costs Order”).

31.1. It is agreed that the CFI Claimants’ Counsel filed a statement of costs issued on 9 September
2025 in the total sum of AED 735,845.42;

31.2. The statement of costs covered the costs of both the First Adverse Costs Order and the
Second Adverse Costs Order, despite the fact that the order issued on 4 September 2025 did not direct
the filing of a statement of costs in respect of costs other than the CFI Claimant’s costs of the strike out
application.

32 . As to paragraph 5.2, although the First Claimant objected to the amount of costs claimed he did not seek
the assistance of the CFI Counsel or instruct any other DIFC Courts practitioner to make submissions on his
behalf.

33.1. it is admitted that by the order issued on 24 March 2026 H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst
assessed the costs payable by the CFI Defendants under the First Adverse Costs Order and the
Second Adverse Costs Order in the total sum of AED 343,953.75;

33.2. the Schedule of Reasons given with the order issued on 24 March 2026 indicated that the
sum assessed by the court as being referable to the Second Adverse Costs Order was AED 188,000
(28 hours of partner’s time at AED 3,500 per hour and 50 hours of trainees’ time at AED 1,800 per
hour);

33.3. it appears from the Schedule of Reasons that the court was not invited, and did not have
regard to the folowing matters:

(1) the CFI Claimants’ Counsel’s statement of costs had not been verified by a statement that the
bi l accurately reflected the amounts which the CFI Claimants were liable to pay and that there were
no arrangements in place which would reduce the amount due and payable by the CFI Claimants
dependent on the outcome of the costs assessment as required by PD 5/2014;

(2) costs should not be awarded against the CFI Defendants insofar as their defences were
responding to the CFI Claimants’ Particulars of Claim dated 7 January 2025 as that Particulars of
Claim post-dated the CFI Defendants’ statements of case (other than the document described as a
“Reply to Defence” issued on 27 March 2025);

(3) The costs of the strike out application had been increased by the failure of the CFI Claimants’
Counsel to observe the overriding objective as required by RDC 2014 1.8 in that after Ms Manaf
provided the CFI Claimants’ Counsel with links to the relevant cases to address the Reference Error
they did not respond or raise any concern with the CFI Counsel regarding the use of artificial
inte ligence in the preparation of the amended defences but instead prepared an expensive
application to strike out which was served shortly before the hearing on 28 August 2025;

33.4. If the CFI Defendants had acted reasonably they would have raised the above points or
instructed the CFI Counsel or another DIFC Courts practitioner to prepare costs submissions for the
CFI Defendants in which case the amount assessed by H.E Justice Thomas Bathurst (including the
amount in respect of the Second Adverse Costs Order) would or could have been less than the amount
actua ly ordered.

34.1. it is denied that there was professional misconduct by the CFI Counsel;
34.2. when the amended defences were submitted to the court, the First Defendant was not aware
that there were legal references within the amended defences which had been produced with the
assistance of artificial inte ligence and which had not been verified;

34.3. it is admitted that the First Adverse Costs Order and Second Adverse Costs Order arise
independently form the merits of the CFI Claimants’ claim;

34.4. the First Adverse Costs Order was caused by the CFI Defendants’ failure to provide a
statement of case that raised al the points they wished to raise and/or which complied with RDC 2014
Part 17 when they were acting in person and was not caused not by any default by the CFI Counsel.

consists of statements regarding the pre-action correspondence between the parties. Nothing in that section discloses any claim against the First Defendant and she does not plead to it because it is irrelevant and its inclusion in the Particulars of Claim is contrary to RDC 2014 17.17.

The first sentence of paragraph 7.1 is a general statement. The First Defendant pleads to the specific
alegations contained in the subsequent paragraphs of section 7 of the Particulars of Claim below. The
second sentence of paragraph 7.1 is noted.

As to paragraph 7.2:

37.1. It is denied that CFI Counsel fabricated references to non-existent court cases;

37.2. It is admitted that:

(1) the CFI Defendants’ amended defences were struck out by the order of 4 September 2025
because H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst considered that they had been prepared with the assistance
of artificial inte ligence and contained unverified false references and other inaccurate material; and

(2) H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst ordered the CFI Defendants to pay the costs of the CFI
Claimants’ application to strike out the amended defences as a result;

37.3. It is admitted that if, which is not known to the First Defendant, the defences were prepared
with the assistance of an artificial inte ligence tool then the legal references should have been verified
before the amended defences were submitted to the court;

37.4. The First Defendant did not prepare the defences and was not responsible for either the
Reference Error or the Halucination Issue;

37.5. Accordingly, it is denied that paragraph 7.2 discloses any breach or misconduct by the First
Defendant.

As to paragraph 7.3:

38.1. Paragraph 7.3 contains no alegation that the defences were inaccurate other than the
matters already aleged in paragraph 7.2;

38.2. Save that it is admitted that the amended defences were subject to the Reference Error and
the Halucination Issue paragraph 7.3 is denied;

38.3. Accordingly, paragraph 7.3 discloses no further ground for bringing a claim against the First
Defendant than paragraph 7.2 does.

As to Paragraph 7.4.I:

39.1. Save for the email sent by Ms Manaf on 30 June 2025 at 12:05pm the Particulars of Claim do
not contain any alegation that the First Claimant was told that he had complied with his disclosure
obligations and accordingly paragraph 7.4.I does not contain any alegation of breach against the First
Defendant;

39.2. It is denied that Ms Manaf’s email of 30 June 2025 sent at 12:05pm was one which no legal
counsel acting with reasonable ski l and care would have sent because Ms Manaf email was based on
the information that the First Claimant had previously provided to her which did not, for example,
include the facts that that:

(1) he wished to rely on documents that he had not produced to the CFI Claimants or provided to
the CFI Counsel;

(2) he had produced documents to the CFI Claimants in a format other than the original format;

(3) the CFI Claimants had made a request for the production of documents on 29 April 2025.

II is too vague for the First Defendant to plead to. The Particulars of Claim contain no
alegation that the documents provided with the amended defences were provided otherwise than in
accordance with RDC 2014.

41. Paragraph 7.4 I is denied.

The First Defendant understands this complaint to relates to the First
Adverse Costs Order. The First Adverse Costs Order arose due to the need to apply to amend the CFI
Defendants’ defences due to the defective statements of case filed by the CFI Defendants whilst they were
acting in person and/or their failure to produce al documents they relied on with those defences. The
amendment of the defences was itself the requisite remedial action but one for which the CFI Defendants
would ordinarily have to bear the costs pursuant to RDC 2014 18.27.

42.1. as set out above, the First Claimant was fuly aware of the matters that were to be pleaded in
the two version of the amended defences that were filed;

42.2. due to constraints of time the CFI Counsel filed revised version of the amended defence for
the CFI Defendants without the CFI Defendants approving the documents as a whole;

42.3. the Claimants had ready access to the DIFC Courts eRegistry to review the amended
defences after they filed;

42.4. accordingly, breach is denied;

42.5. further, the Claimants have not made any complaint regarding the contents of the amended
defences other than in relation the incorrect legal citations caused by the Reference Error and the
Halucination Issue;

42.6. the Claimants do not alege that they would have spotted the Reference Error or the
Halucination Issue if they had reviewed the amended defences before they were filed;

42.7 . accordingly, causation is denied.

43.1. The production of documents was ordered at the hearing on 3 March 2025 as set out in the
order issued on 18 April 2025;

43.2. The First Claimant had not paid the initial payment due under the Retainer Agreement with
the Second Defendant when the order to produce documents fel to be complied with on 21 April 2025
and so the CFI Counsel were not under any obligation to supervise his compliance with the 18 April
2025 Disclosure Order;

43.3. Further, the a legation in paragraph 8.3 overlaps with the alegation in paragraph 7.4.I and
the First Defendant repeats were response to paragraph 7.4 I.

44.1. The CFI Counsel only filed two version of the amended defences

(1) The version for which permission was sought in the application filed before the 10 July 2025;
(2) The version for which permission was sought filed on 28 July 2025

44.2. It is admitted that the CFI Counsel carried out further work on the amended defences prior 28
July 2025, in particular to:

(1) produce further supporting documents which the First Claimant provided to the CFI Counsel
after the hearing on 17 July 2025; and

(2) separate out the defences of the CFI Defendants.

44.3. Save for the Reference Error and the Halucination Issue, it is denied that the amended
defences filed on 10 July 2025 or on 28 July 2025 were defective or negligently drafted;

44.4. It is denied there was any procedural disorder other than that caused by the CFI Defendants
own failure to conduct their defences in accordance with the RDC 2014 and the 18 April 2025
Disclosure Order whilst they were acting in person.

46.1.The First Defendant accepts that it is the responsibility of practitioners before the DIFC
Courts to verify legal citations when an artificial inte ligence tool has been used for research purposes,
but it is denied that the First Defendant was negligent;

46.2. The First Defendant did not produce the amended defences;

46.3. that: Before the amended defences were submitted to the court the First Defendant was not aware

(1) there were any unverified legal citations in the amended defences; or

(2) the amended defences were subject to the Reference Error or the Halucination Issue;

46.4. At some point after 13 August 2025 the First Defendant was provided with an assurance by
Ms Manaf that the only issue with the amended defences was the Reference Error.

(1) The application to file an amended defence was issued on 10 July 2025 not 9 July 2025;
(2) The application to strike out the amended defences was made on 25 August 2025 and not 22
August 2025;

48.2. Insofar as criticism of the Defendants is indicated in the final column the description is
disputed. For example:

(1) The CFI Counsel cannot be criticised for filing notices to change legal representation until 30
June 2025 and 3 July 2025 because the First Defendant had not paid the Second Defendant the
initial fee that was a pre-condition of it acting under the terms of the Retainer Agreement; and

(2) The applications or documents listed as being filed on 9 July 2025, 16 July 2025 and 24 July
2025 were al required due to the conduct of the CFI Defendants whilst they were acting in person.

49.1. It is denied that the Code gives rise to any private law cause of action that the Claimants can
rely on as against the Defendants;

49.2. It is accepted that the Code contains the provisions referred to in section 10;

49.3. It is denied that the First Claimant breached the Code as aleged;

49.4. For the avoidance of doubt, the First Defendant accepts that it is the responsibility of
practitioners before the DIFC Courts to verify legal citations when an artificial inte ligence tool has been
used for research purposes but First Defendant did not produce the defences;

49.5. Prior to the amended defences being submitted to the court the First Defendant was not
aware that:

(1) there were any unverified legal citations in the amended defences; or

(2) the amended defences were subject to the Reference Error or the Halucination Issue.

As to paragraph 11.2:

51.1. It is admitted that the Retainer Agreement was a contract for the provision of legal services;

51.2. The First Defendant was not a party to the Retainer Agreement;

51.3. The provisions of the Contract Law 2004 on which the Claimants rely are noted.

As to paragraph 11.3:

52.1. It is denied that the First Defendant assumed a personal responsibility to the Claimants;

52.2. The provisions of the Law of Obligations 2005 on which the Claimant rely are noted.

Paragraph 11.4 is noted.

Paragraph 11.5 is noted.

Paragraph 11.6 is noted.

58. It is denied that the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants for breach of contract whether as aleged in
paragraph 13.2 or otherwise because the First Defendant was not a party to the Retainer Agreement.

59. As to paragraph 13.3:

59.1. It is denied that the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants for breach of any duty of care
owed to them. The First Defendant did not assume responsibility to the Claimants; and

59.2. Paragraph 13.3 fails to provide any particulars as to how the First Defendant breached any
duty of care to the Claimants.

52.2. The provisions of the Law of Obligations 2005 on which the Claimant rely are noted.

Paragraph 11.4 is noted.

Paragraph 11.5 is noted.

Paragraph 11.6 is noted.

60.1. it is denied the RDC 2014 gives rise to any private law cause of action that the Claimants can
rely on as against the Defendants;

60.2. It is denied the Defendants’ breached RDC 2014 1.6. The Defendants took necessary action
to protect the CFI Defendants’ position (given their previous failures to file compliant statements of case
and produce documents in accordance with the RDC 2014 whilst they were acting in person);

60.3 It is denied that a breach of RDC 2014 Part 22 was caused by the Reference Error or the
Halucination Issue. The statement of truth to the defences verified the CFI Defendants’ belief in the
facts contained in defence and not the accuracy of the points of law referred to. It is, in any event, no
part of the Claimants’ pleaded case that they did not in fact believe the facts stated in their amended
defences.

it is denied that the Claimants against the Defendants

It is denied that the First Adverse Costs Order was caused by any act of omission on the part of the CFI
Counsel.

63. It is accepted that the Second Adverse Costs Order arose because H.E Justice Thomas Bathurst found
there to have been erroneous legal citation in the amended defences as a result of use of an artificial
inte ligence tool, but the First Defendant did not prepare the amended defences and for the reasons given
above the First Defendant was not negligent.

65. As to paragraphs 16.1 to 16.3 it is denied that the Claimants acted reasonably to mitigate their loss in
that:

(1) The First Claimant did not meet with the CFI Counsel after the 28 August 2025 hearing;

(2) The First Claimant’s filings on 2 September 2025 adopted the CFI Claimant’s position in respect of issues
beyond the Reference Error and the Halucination Issue thereby increasing the chances, scope and quantum of
costs recovery by the CFI Claimants against the CFI Defendants;

(3) The CFI Defendants did not take the advice of the CFI Counsel or any other DIFC Courts practitioner when
preparing their submissions on costs and thereby lost the chance to reduce the amount of costs they were
ordered to pay.

If, which is denied, the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants then, save as appears below, the
Claimants are required to prove al claims for loss and damage.

As to paragraph 17.1(a):

67.1. it is admitted that the Claimants are liable to pay the sum ordered due under the order issued
on 24 March 2026;

67.2. it is denied that the First Adverse Costs Order arose due to any default on the part of the CFI
Counsel and no part of the costs relating to that order are recoverable from the Defendants; and

67.3. as stated above, the Claimants failed to act reasonably to mitigate their exposure to a costs
liability to the CFI Claimants.

As to paragraph 17.1(b):

68.1. The legal fees were paid to the Second Defendant pursuant to the Retainer Agreement and
not to the First Defendant;

68.2. It is denied that the First Claimant is entitled to recover the fees paid under the Retainer
Agreement as he had agreed to pay the Second Defendant those fees and services were provided to
him in respect of the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings.

As to paragraph 17.1(c):

69.1. It is denied that the CFI Defendant’s incurred any corrective legal costs as aleged;

69.2. The CFI Defendants continued to act in person in the CFI-066-2024 Proceedings and their
statements of case in those proceedings were drafted by themselves or by the First Claimant who by
an affidavit swore that his amended defence was prepared through his “own manual effort, mental
labour, and understanding of the facts and legal principles involved in [the] case”.

As to paragraph 17.1(d)

the Claimants have not specified what wasted costs or related disbursement
they have incurred. The alegation is too vague to please to.

If, which is denied, the First Defendant is liable to the Claimants then, save as appears below, the
Claimants are required to prove al claims for loss and damage.

73. It is further denied that the claims made by the Claimants give rise to strict liability on the part of the
Defendants.