There you go again...... if their claim is properly defended people would not be 'losing' on jurisdiction...if they have??? You are calling Hornsey and Squaddy LIARS now. They defended by following advice on THIS forum. As best they could as litigants in person. I have not insulted anyone personal where you by the above statement have. If i chose to insult you it is very unlikely you would even know by my choice of words As for coming here to help people..... better you saved your time and went elsewhere as all you are doing is confusing and miss directing.

My story as stated previously is that I am engaged in a prolonged battle with CWD much the same as all are that are here. The fact i choose not to post personal documents is proven to be a wise decision, as is not spunking potential defence against action that is not already known. I look for info, and share the same when i find it and its factual. I don't make statements that are short on fact or truth. Neither would i hide behind walls of 'dont make personal insults' like some kind o snowflake when there has been no insults other than challenges. I am one of the many who is in front of these people in court, and not coming from a position whereby my advice or nonchalance has no personal cost.. No keyboard warrior but in deep. Anyway, as i said, signing off now. If people choose not to read what is in front of them then there is no hope Simple facts are that CWD are winning on Jurisdiction, rightly or wrongly. In my view wrongly but it is not good enough for others just to state they are not going to win.. they are... people need to be better prepared. People come here for guidance and should be given the full facts, not some opinion of a keyboard warrior without any prior experience of international debt collection.

Think you need to read own rules your comments noted as would be any disclosures. Anyway like i said. Good luck to all.

Have it your way. My 'info' behind the scenes was shared with said person with a caveat. That is me out. Good luck to all.

Yawn.... yes we have read that and know that. Here is the specific quote: (I have shared before and you can google the origins): What the court was being asked to do had "all the hallmarks of legislation" and "is a matter for the legislature and not for judicial innovation". He continued to say that "The law relating to the enforcement of foreign judgements and the law relating to international insolvency are not areas of law which have in recent times been left to be developed by judge-made law." BUT That IS WHAT IS HAPPENING Rightly or wrongly, and as matter that people cannot afford representation. YOU are not telling people this yet you know it to be true. People then take what you say as being good news............................... then they end up with £'000 of costs. YOU are being irresponsible. That does NOT mean that Jurisdiction should ot be challenged that is a different matter. Further more in the majority of cases... NO FOREIGN JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN SOUGHT OR WON If you wish to help, spend your time finding FACTUAL evidence and case law....

Where have you been?

WRONG UAE law is quite specific. anyway.

You have been reading these boards for the past week or so right? If so you will know that CWD are anything BUT powerless! They are NOT a DCA for starters. To state that all people are protected under the UK insolvency laws would be the right statement. To state that they are powerless is utter garbage on recent evidence.

QUESTION DX For a UK Agent to collect UAE debts in the UK what must be in place?

Please allow those who are actually in this position to decide upon whether to read this or not. Here you are again.... the fountain of Knowledge But you have zero knowledge or experience in International Debt, particularly the UAE. You also MISS the key passage... but hey.. each to their own. (wen you have the time to take your head from the proverbial, perhaps you could spend a little bit of it reading about Public Policy). You really are a Prize.

worth a read https://gulfnews.com/business/banking/dealing-with-debt-and-loans-in-the-uae-first-hand-accounts-1.1541879400930

worth a read https://gulfnews.com/business/banking/dealing-with-debt-and-loans-in-the-uae-first-hand-accounts-1.1541879400930

sO THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THIS must BE HEARD IN THE jurisdiction and MUS be heard under UK Law. Please check (Hello CWD..... you know where im going with this... you should be ashamed of yourselves)

Squaddy... i want to clarify something with both yourself and Hornsey62 Have CWD stated that, though in this jurisdiction, it should be heard under UAE Law. Please check this and be clear.

Up to you chap... read their jurisdiction and what they can hear.

The Court of First Instance shall be comprised of a single Judge and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over: Civil or commercial cases and disputes involving the DIFC, any of the DIFC’s bodies or any of the DIFC’s establishments. Civil or commercial cases and disputes arising from or related to a contract that has been fulfilled or a transaction that has been carried out, in whole or in part, in the DIFC or an incident that has occurred in the DIFC.

Yes

That is DIFC courts not UAE Courts. They are separate entities.

Andy thats a sensible move. Idadvise all are uploaded off public and then scrutinised. Salient points and advice can be shared for other if factual. DX before you start I am NOT trying to stifle debate or the share of knowledge, far from it. I 'know' what CWD are doing here... and we have to act to stop it.

Dealings yes.... work for? oh please then again... who can you trust? that is my point do not post sensitive info

Up to you. Go ahead. Good luck. BUT as you have asked advice I will share it. 1. As i said earlier... ignore to a point but why would you do so? IF as the majority of us hold we know we owe the money, or proportion of it, then we indeed owe it. No need to hide unless we are trying to hide? which is both morally and legally wrong ( face it) - this does not mean that they have a legal right to chase you here. 2. By the statements you have uploaded and the amounts that they include it does not take a genius to associate them with YOU 3. c. 3. 5 Million on a credit card, they are having a laugh.... and where do they get the 250k limitation from 4. Use the incredulous amount to cast doubt on the whole submission 4. If they state a limitation, be advised that had the matter been heard in the UAE the MAXIMUM legal costs to be applied are 1. 10% of the debt in terms of court costs and 2. 2000 aed. MAXIMUM in terms of legal cost. If they wish UAE law to apply here in the UK, then so too should these measures. there is a [edited - HB] load more stuff... legally correct, that could be shared on this forum Suffice to say will keep my powder dry No doubt this will be removed but content you will receive be email prior.

I have no idea sorry. where are you at with the claim now? I wouldnt do that. Dont reply for sure until b post and official... but you want to know everything they are sending. In UAE law they can inform certain matters by email.

i dont know. Limitation is 15 years otherwise but you will need to know the date they attempted encashment and for what amount

BUT are helping CWD? you miss my point.

Go to Practical Law website... thats where CWD go... the info is there By the way... it is also against the Law of the Central Bank of the UAE in the first place to take a blank cheque as security for a loan/credit card. Has been since 2012. I wuldnt depend upon that in a UAE court.. but i would raise in a UK one...CWD want the laws of a draconian dark ages authority to apply here... ! then fine.... tht also means their fees are restricted !!!!!!!!!!