June 17, 2026
The DIFC Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in Abramenko & Anr v Chuprin [2026] DIFC CA 009 dismissing an appeal against an order granting relief from sanctions. The judgment sets out guidance for how a Court should approach contested issues of fact on an application for relief from sanctions.
The underlying proceedings concern a dispute over the ownership and control of a high value online gaming business. Part way through a trial of the proceedings, the Defendant applied for relief from sanctions to call an additional witness in breach of an earlier order for the filing of evidence. The Defendant alleged that the reason why he had been unable to produce a witness statement from that witness at an earlier stage was because of a campaign of witness intimidation levied against her. These allegations are denied by the Claimants.
The Court of First Instance granted the application, applying the well-known test in Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906. When considering whether there was a good reason for the default, the Court held that it could not make a definitive finding, at an interlocutory stage, as to whether the alleged acts of witness intimidation took place. However, it was found that there was prima facie evidence of a good reason for the breach.
On appeal, the Claimants argued that the Court had applied the wrong evidential standard in finding that there was prima facie evidence of a good reason for the breach. Instead, they contended that any such good reason had to be established on the balance of probabilities. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal, who held that “[t]he structure of Denton does not require a judge in every case to make definitive findings on disputed facts at the second stage, particularly where the issue overlaps with matters that may be explored at trial and where it would be impossible, inappropriate or unfair to resolve it finally on the material available. […] In such a case, the Court may take the quality and cogency of the explanation into account as part of the overall assessment, without converting an unresolved issue into a final finding of fact.”
Alexander Cook KC and Hossein Sharafi, instructed by John Gilbert, Chris Williams, Laura Watt, and Henry Day of Bracewell (UK) LLP, acted for the successful Defendant/ Respondent. They continue to act, together with Honor Brocklebank-Fowler in the underlying trial of the proceedings.
Read the judgment here.
