This order formalizes the procedural roadmap for the complex multi-party litigation involving KBC Aldini Capital, David Baazov, and the Canaccord Genuity entities, setting definitive timelines for document production, expert evidence, and the final trial.
What is the nature of the dispute between KBC Aldini Capital and David Baazov in CFI 002/2017?
The litigation concerns a high-stakes commercial dispute involving KBC Aldini Capital Limited as the Claimant, and a group of Defendants including David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp, and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited. The proceedings have expanded to include Part 21 Defendants, specifically Aleksei Chegodaev and Ferdyne Advisory Inc., reflecting the complex web of liability and third-party claims involved in the matter. The case has been subject to extensive procedural management, as evidenced by previous orders such as KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2017] DIFC CFI 002 — Procedural limitations on default judgment (12 February 2017).
The current order serves as an amended Case Management Conference (CMC) directive, consolidating the parties' obligations as they move toward a trial. The dispute centers on allegations of financial loss, with the First Defendant, David Baazov, seeking to introduce expert evidence regarding the quantification of the Claimant’s alleged losses. The procedural complexity is further heightened by the need for substituted service on the Part 21 Defendants, who are located outside the jurisdiction. As noted in the order:
In the event that the First and/or Second and Third Defendants apply to re-list their Expert Application, any application which the Claimant wishes to make for permission to call an expert witness and serve an expert report shall be heard at the same time as the First and/or Second and Third Defendants’ Expert Application.
Which judge presided over the Case Management Conference for CFI 002/2017 on 20 August 2019?
The Amended Case Management Conference Order was issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order followed a CMC held on 23 June 2019, where the Court reviewed the case file and the submissions of counsel for the Claimant, the First Defendant, and the Second and Third Defendants.
What specific procedural applications did the parties advance during the CMC before Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi?
Counsel for the parties presented several oral applications to the Court to refine the trial preparation process. The First Defendant, David Baazov, sought three primary forms of relief: permission to call an expert witness to quantify the Claimant’s loss under RDC 31.13, authorization for substituted service on the Part 21 Defendants pursuant to RDC 9.31, and permission to provide evidence via video link under RDC 29.14.
Simultaneously, the Second and Third Defendants, Canaccord Genuity Corp and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited, applied for permission to call an expert witness to address complex issues of Canadian Law. The Court, by consent, stayed the expert and video link applications until after the document production phase, ensuring that the scope of evidence is clearly defined before expert testimony is finalized.
What jurisdictional and procedural questions did the Court address regarding the Part 21 Defendants?
The Court was required to determine the appropriate method for serving pleadings on the Part 21 Defendants, Aleksei Chegodaev and Ferdyne Advisory Inc., given the difficulties inherent in international service. The legal issue centered on whether the Court should exercise its discretion under RDC 9.31 to permit alternative methods of service, including email and registered courier, to ensure the proceedings could progress without undue delay. The Court granted this liberty, effectively bypassing traditional service hurdles. As stated in the order:
Pursuant to RDC 9.31, the First Defendant shall have liberty to serve all further pleadings and proceedings herein on the First and Second Part 21 Defendants in the manner and by the alternative method of service as follows:
How did Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi structure the document production and expert evidence timeline?
The Court adopted a phased approach to document production and expert evidence to manage the litigation efficiently. By staying the expert applications until after the document production phase, the Court ensured that the parties would have access to all relevant evidence before finalizing their expert reports. The order establishes a strict calendar for Requests to Produce, objections, and the final Document Production Statement. The reasoning relies on the necessity of narrowing the issues before expert testimony is introduced. The order specifies:
Where there are no objections to a particular request contained in a Request to Produce, documents responsive to that request shall be produced by 4pm on 3 October 2019.
Where objections to any Requests to Produce have been made, the Court shall determine those objections and will make any order by 4pm on 17 October 2019.
The parties shall comply with the terms of any order made under paragraph 5 of this Order and file a Document Production Statement by 4pm on 31 October 2019.
Which DIFC Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) were applied to govern the procedural conduct of this case?
The Court relied on several key provisions of the RDC to manage the case. RDC Part 28 was invoked to govern the standard production of documents. RDC 31.13 provided the framework for the expert witness applications, while RDC 29.14 was cited regarding the First Defendant’s request to provide evidence via video link. Furthermore, RDC 9.31 was the primary authority for the Court’s decision to grant substituted service on the Part 21 Defendants. RDC Part 29 and RDC Part 35 were utilized to set the deadlines for witness statements and the final trial listing, respectively.
How did the Court utilize RDC 9.31 to facilitate service on the Part 21 Defendants?
The Court exercised its power under RDC 9.31 to authorize specific alternative methods of service, recognizing the practical challenges of serving parties in France and the British Virgin Islands. For the Second Part 21 Defendant, Ferdyne Advisory Inc., the Court mandated:
Service on the Second Part 21 Defendant, Ferdyne Advisory Inc. by Registered Courier to its registered office at Vanterpool Plaza, 2nd Floor, P.O.
This approach ensures that the litigation remains on track despite the international nature of the parties involved, preventing the Part 21 Defendants from avoiding the Court's jurisdiction through procedural evasion.
What was the final disposition of the Case Management Conference, and what is the scheduled trial date?
The Court issued an order by consent, which effectively set the procedural calendar for the remainder of the case. The trial was formally listed for 8 March 2020, with an estimated duration of five days. The order also confirmed that the costs of the CMC would be "costs in the case," meaning they will be awarded to the successful party at the conclusion of the trial. The trial listing is defined as follows:
The trial of this matter shall be listed at 10am on 8 March 2020 with an estimated duration of 5 days.
What are the practical implications of this order for future litigants in the DIFC?
This order highlights the importance of the "stay and re-list" mechanism for expert applications in complex commercial litigation. By deferring expert evidence until after document production, the Court prevents the premature filing of expert reports that may be rendered obsolete by the disclosure of key documents. Litigants should note that the DIFC Court is increasingly willing to utilize RDC 9.31 to facilitate service on international parties, provided that the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed alternative method is likely to bring the proceedings to the attention of the defendant. Practitioners must ensure that all procedural applications are well-coordinated to avoid the need for multiple CMC amendments.
Where can I read the full judgment in KBC ALDINI CAPITAL v DAVID BAAZOV [2019] DIFC CFI 002?
The full text of the Amended Case Management Conference Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0022017-kbc-aldini-capital-limited-v-1-david-baazov-2-canaccord-genuity-corp-3-canaccord-genuity-dubai-limited-and-1-aleksei-3 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-002-2017_20190820.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 9.31 (Service)
- RDC 28 (Production of Documents)
- RDC 29.14 (Evidence by Video Link)
- RDC 31.13 (Expert Evidence)
- RDC Part 29 (Witness Statements)
- RDC Part 35 (Trial)