What is the nature of the dispute between KBC Aldini Capital and David Baazov in CFI 002/2017?
The litigation involves a complex multi-party claim initiated by KBC Aldini Capital Limited against David Baazov, Canaccord Genuity Corp, and Canaccord Genuity (Dubai) Limited. The proceedings have expanded to include Part 21 claims against Aleksei Chegodaev and Ferdyne Advisory Inc. The core of the dispute centers on allegations of financial loss, with the First Defendant, David Baazov, seeking to challenge the quantification of these losses through expert evidence.
The procedural history of this matter is extensive, reflecting the challenges of managing a case with international parties and cross-claims. Previous orders have addressed the limitations on default judgments and the complexities of serving process on international entities. As noted in the procedural history:
Which judge presided over the Case Management Conference for KBC Aldini Capital v David Baazov?
The Re-Amended Case Management Conference Order was issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order follows a Case Management Conference held on 23 June 2019, where the Court reviewed the case file and the submissions of the parties to establish a definitive timeline for the remainder of the litigation.
What were the specific procedural applications argued by the parties before Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi?
Counsel for the Claimant, the First Defendant, and the Second and Third Defendants appeared before the Court to address several outstanding procedural hurdles. The First Defendant sought permission to call an expert witness to testify on the quantification of the Claimant’s alleged losses under RDC 31.13. Additionally, the First Defendant requested leave for substituted service on the Part 21 Defendants (Aleksei Chegodaev and Ferdyne Advisory Inc.) pursuant to RDC 9.31, and sought permission to provide evidence via video link under RDC 29.14.
The Second and Third Defendants concurrently applied for permission to call an expert witness to address issues of Canadian Law. The Court heard these applications and, by consent of all parties, structured the order to stay the expert applications until after the document production phase, ensuring that the scope of expert evidence would be informed by the disclosed materials.
What is the legal threshold for the Court to determine objections to Requests to Produce under RDC Part 28?
The Court was required to establish a clear mechanism for resolving disputes regarding document disclosure. The legal question centered on the timeline for the "Request to Produce" process, specifically how the Court would adjudicate objections to ensure that the production of documents does not delay the trial preparation. The Court established a phased approach, requiring parties to file objections by 26 September 2019, with the Court setting a deadline for its own determination of those objections.
How did Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi structure the document production and expert witness timeline?
The Court adopted a sequential approach to document production and expert evidence to prevent premature applications. By staying the expert applications until after the completion of document production, the Court ensured that the parties would have the necessary evidence before finalizing their expert requirements. The order mandates:
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 .
This structured approach ensures that the Court’s intervention is limited to contested items, while uncontested documents are produced on a fixed schedule.
Which RDC rules govern the procedural directions in KBC Aldini Capital v David Baazov?
The Court relied on several key provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the case. Specifically, RDC Part 28 was applied to govern the standard production of documents and the Request to Produce process. RDC 31.13 was the primary authority for the expert witness applications, while RDC 9.31 provided the legal basis for the substituted service on the Part 21 Defendants. Furthermore, RDC 29.14 was invoked regarding the First Defendant’s request to provide evidence via video link, and RDC Part 35 was utilized to set the trial date.
How did the Court address the potential for future expert witness applications?
The Court provided a clear mechanism for the parties to re-list their expert applications once document production is complete. To ensure procedural fairness, the Court mandated that if the Defendants proceed with their expert applications, the Claimant must be given an equal opportunity to respond.
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.
This provision prevents a "piecemeal" approach to expert evidence, requiring all parties to align their applications for the Court’s consideration at a single hearing.
What is the final disposition and trial schedule established by the Court?
The Court ordered that the trial be listed for 8 March 2020, with an estimated duration of five days. The order also granted the First Defendant liberty to serve the Part 21 Defendants via email and registered courier. Costs of the Case Management Conference were ordered to be "costs in the case," meaning the successful party at trial will likely recover these costs.
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 for practitioners managing complex multi-party litigation in the DIFC?
This order highlights the importance of "consent orders" in managing complex litigation. By securing the agreement of all parties on the procedural roadmap, the Court avoids the need for contested hearings on every procedural step. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court is increasingly willing to stay expert applications until document production is finalized, a practice that prevents the unnecessary expenditure of costs on expert reports that may become redundant once the full documentary record is available. Furthermore, the use of substituted service via email and courier for international defendants remains a vital tool for ensuring that proceedings are not stalled by the difficulty of serving parties in foreign jurisdictions.
Where can I read the full judgment in KBC Aldini Capital v David Baazov [2019] DIFC CFI 002?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: 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-6 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-002-2017_20191113.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 28 (Production of Documents)
- RDC 31.13 (Expert Evidence)
- RDC 9.31 (Substituted Service)
- RDC 29.14 (Evidence by Video Link)
- RDC Part 29 (Witness Statements)
- RDC Part 35 (Trial)