This consent order formalizes the procedural timeline for the determination of costs following the Court of Appeal’s substantive judgment in the ongoing dispute between Sandra Holding and the Al Saleh family.
What is the nature of the underlying dispute between Sandra Holding and the Al Saleh family that necessitated a costs hearing in CA 003/2023?
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute between Sandra Holding Ltd and Nuri Musaed Al Saleh (as Claimants/Respondents) and Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh, Ahmed Fawzi Al Saleh, Yasmine Fawzi Al Saleh, and Farah El Merabi (as Defendants/Appellants). Following the substantive judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 6 September 2023, the parties entered into a procedural impasse regarding the quantification and allocation of legal costs.
The dispute centers on the finality of the appellate process and the subsequent determination of which party bears the financial burden of the proceedings. Rather than litigating the quantum of costs through contested motions, the parties reached a consensus on the procedural path forward. The court formalized this agreement to ensure that the costs phase of the litigation proceeds in an orderly fashion, specifically regarding the scheduling of the hearing and the submission of legal arguments. As noted in the order:
The Costs Hearing shall be scheduled to take place on the first available date between 24 and 26 October 2023 with a time estimate of half a day.
Which judges presided over the Court of Appeal order issued on 12 October 2023 in CA 003/2023?
The consent order was issued by the DIFC Court of Appeal, reflecting the judicial oversight of the panel that presided over the substantive appeal. The panel consisted of Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani, and Justice Lord Angus Glennie. This panel, having delivered the primary judgment on 6 September 2023, maintained jurisdiction over the ancillary matter of costs, ensuring continuity in the judicial handling of the case. The order itself was formally issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo on 12 October 2023.
What were the respective positions of the parties regarding the scheduling of the costs hearing in CA 003/2023?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, adopted a collaborative approach to the procedural management of the costs phase. Following the Registry’s inquiry on 6 September 2023 regarding mutual availability, the parties engaged in negotiations to avoid the necessity of a contested procedural hearing.
The Claimants/Respondents and the Defendants/Appellants agreed to a structured timeline that balances the need for judicial efficiency with the requirement for thorough preparation. By consenting to the terms of the order, both sides effectively waived the right to dispute the scheduling, opting instead to focus their resources on the substantive arguments regarding costs to be presented in their respective skeleton arguments. This alignment of positions allowed the Court of Appeal to bypass the need for a formal hearing on procedural directions, thereby streamlining the path to the final resolution of the costs issue.
What was the precise legal question the Court of Appeal had to resolve regarding the procedural management of costs in CA 003/2023?
The Court of Appeal was not tasked with determining the quantum of costs or the merits of the underlying appeal in this specific order. Instead, the legal question before the court was whether the parties’ agreed-upon timeline for the submission of skeleton arguments and the scheduling of the costs hearing met the requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
The court had to ensure that the proposed schedule provided sufficient time for the exchange of submissions and that the hearing date was consistent with the court’s calendar. The doctrinal issue here is the court’s role in facilitating the efficient resolution of ancillary matters through consent orders, ensuring that procedural compliance does not become a source of further litigation between the parties. By issuing the order, the court affirmed the validity of the parties' agreement as a binding procedural framework.
How did the Court of Appeal justify the issuance of the consent order in CA 003/2023?
The court’s reasoning was predicated on the principle of party autonomy in procedural matters, provided that such agreements do not impede the court’s ability to manage its own docket. The panel relied on the fact that the parties had reached a mutual understanding following the Registry’s initial inquiry.
By formalizing the agreement into a consent order, the court exercised its inherent power to manage the litigation process efficiently. The judge’s reasoning focused on the necessity of setting a firm deadline for skeleton arguments to ensure that the court is adequately prepared for the half-day hearing. The order explicitly mandates:
The Costs Hearing shall be scheduled to take place on the first available date between 24 and 26 October 2023 with a time estimate of half a day.
This approach minimizes judicial intervention in the scheduling process while ensuring that the parties remain strictly bound to the agreed-upon timeline.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the procedural requirements for costs hearings and skeleton arguments?
The procedural framework for this order is governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those sections pertaining to the court’s case management powers and the assessment of costs. While the order is a consent-based instrument, it operates within the parameters of RDC Part 38 (Costs) and RDC Part 4 (Court’s Case Management Powers).
These rules empower the court to give directions for the management of cases, including the setting of timetables for the exchange of submissions. The requirement for skeleton arguments by 20 October 2023 is a standard procedural safeguard under the RDC to ensure that the court and the opposing parties are fully apprised of the arguments to be advanced during the costs hearing.
How did the Court of Appeal utilize its authority under the RDC to manage the costs phase in CA 003/2023?
The court utilized its authority under RDC Part 4 to ensure that the costs hearing would be conducted within a half-day time estimate. By setting a specific deadline for the exchange of skeleton arguments—5pm GST on 20 October 2023—the court ensured that the parties would be prepared to address the court effectively.
This procedural discipline is a hallmark of the DIFC Court’s approach to case management, where the court actively intervenes to prevent delays. The court’s use of the "liberty to apply" clause (Paragraph 3 of the order) further demonstrates its ongoing oversight, allowing the parties to return to the court should any unforeseen procedural issues arise before the hearing date.
What was the final disposition of the Court of Appeal regarding the costs of the application itself in CA 003/2023?
The Court of Appeal ordered that there be "no order as to costs" regarding the application for the consent order itself. This is a standard disposition in cases where parties reach a mutual agreement on procedural directions, as it reflects the fact that neither party has "won" or "lost" the procedural motion. The substantive costs of the appeal remain to be determined at the hearing scheduled for late October 2023. The order effectively clears the procedural path for the parties to argue the merits of the costs allocation without the distraction of additional costs disputes arising from the scheduling process.
What are the practical implications for practitioners regarding the scheduling of costs hearings in the DIFC Court of Appeal?
Practitioners must anticipate that the DIFC Court of Appeal will prioritize the use of consent orders to manage the post-judgment phase of litigation. The requirement for skeleton arguments to be submitted well in advance of the hearing is strictly enforced, and practitioners should ensure that their submissions are comprehensive and filed by the court-mandated deadline.
The reliance on the Registry to coordinate availability suggests that practitioners should be proactive in communicating with the court and opposing counsel immediately following a substantive judgment. Failure to adhere to the agreed-upon schedule in a consent order could lead to the court exercising its powers under the RDC to impose sanctions or vacate the hearing date, which would significantly delay the final resolution of the matter.
Where can I read the full judgment in Sandra Holding Ltd v Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh [2023] DIFC CA 003?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/ca-0032023-1-sandra-holding-ltd-2-nuri-musaed-al-saleh-v-1-fawzi-musaed-al-saleh-2-ahmed-fawzi-al-saleh-3-yasmine-fawzi-al-saleh. The document is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-appeal/DIFC_COA_CA_003_2023_1_Sandra_Holding_Ltd_2_Nuri_Musaed_Al_Saleh_v_1_Fawzi_Musaed_A_20231012.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law was cited in this procedural consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 4 (Court’s Case Management Powers)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 38 (Costs)