This consent order marks a significant procedural milestone in the long-running insurance dispute, formalizing a stay of proceedings to facilitate settlement and confirming the removal of Fenchurch Faris Limited from the litigation.
What is the nature of the dispute between Qatar Reinsurance Company and Orient Insurance PJSC in CFI 009/2022?
The litigation concerns a complex reinsurance dispute between Qatar Reinsurance Company Limited (the Claimant) and Orient Insurance PJSC and Orient UNB Takaful (the Defendants). The matter involves claims arising under a policy issued by the First Defendant to ItalConsult on 26 February 2018 (Policy No. P/01/6005/2018/4). The case has been subject to extensive procedural management, including multiple stays and consent orders, as the parties attempt to resolve the underlying commercial disagreements.
The current order reflects a strategic pause in the litigation to allow for settlement negotiations. As noted in the court's recent directive:
To allow the parties to pursue a resolution of the matters in dispute, the proceedings are
stayed until 20 December 2024 (the “Stay”).
This order follows a series of previous procedural developments, including QATAR REINSURANCE COMPANY v ORIENT INSURANCE [2022] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural management of joinder applications (27 July 2022), QATAR REINSURANCE COMPANY v ORIENT INSURANCE [2022] DIFC CFI 009 — Consolidation of insurance litigation (05 October 2022), QATAR REINSURANCE COMPANY v ORIENT INSURANCE [2022] DIFC CFI 009 — Amended stay of proceedings (21 December 2022), QATAR REINSURANCE COMPANY v ORIENT INSURANCE [2023] DIFC CFI 009 — Amended consent order staying proceedings (28 April 2023), and QATAR REINSURANCE COMPANY v ORIENT INSURANCE [2023] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural stay for settlement negotiations (30 May 2023).
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 009/2022 on 26 November 2024?
The consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo within the Court of First Instance of the DIFC Courts. The order was finalized and issued at 12:00 PM on 26 November 2024, following the parties' submission of an agreed-upon procedural framework to the Registry.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the Additional Claim against Fenchurch Faris Limited?
The Defendants, Orient Insurance PJSC and Orient UNB Takaful, had previously initiated an Additional Claim against Fenchurch Faris Limited, which was met with a Defence to the Additional Claim filed by the Third Party on 25 November 2022. However, the parties subsequently reached an agreement to discontinue this specific aspect of the litigation. The Defendants filed a Notice of Discontinuance on 22 November 2024, effectively removing Fenchurch Faris Limited from the current scope of the proceedings.
What was the specific legal question addressed by the Court regarding the Third Party's involvement?
The Court was required to confirm the procedural finality of the discontinuance of the Additional Claim. The primary issue was whether the Defendants were still obligated to respond to the Third Party's Defence in light of the agreed-upon discontinuance. The Court affirmed that the procedural requirements for the Third Party were now moot, as the claim against them had been formally withdrawn by the Defendants.
How did the Court reason that the Defendants were relieved of further filings regarding the Third Party?
The Court relied on the procedural agreement reached between the Defendants and the Third Party, which was formalized through the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance. By acknowledging the Discontinuance, the Court simplified the case management requirements, ensuring that no unnecessary pleadings were filed while the parties focused on the primary dispute. The Court's reasoning is summarized in the following instruction:
The Defendants need not file a Reply to the Third Party's Defence to the Additional Claim
in view of the Discontinuance.
This approach aligns with the Court’s objective to streamline proceedings and reduce the burden on both the parties and the judicial registry during the pendency of settlement negotiations.
What specific DIFC Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) and procedural mechanisms were applied in this order?
The order relies on the inherent case management powers of the DIFC Court to facilitate settlement and manage the court file. While specific RDC rules governing discontinuance (RDC Part 38) were the backdrop for the Notice of Discontinuance filed on 22 November 2024, the order itself functions as a consent order under the Court's general case management authority. The order also references the history of previous consent orders, demonstrating a consistent application of procedural stays to encourage alternative dispute resolution.
How did the Court utilize the history of previous orders in CFI 009/2022?
The Court utilized the history of previous consent orders—specifically those dated 27 July 2022, 21 December 2022, 28 April 2023, 30 May 2023, 6 June 2023, and 30 August 2024—to establish a continuous procedural narrative. By referencing these prior orders, the Court maintained the continuity of the stay and ensured that the current order was consistent with the long-term procedural trajectory of the case, which has been characterized by iterative extensions to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted by the Court?
The Court ordered a stay of proceedings until 20 December 2024. Additionally, the deadline for the Claimant to file and serve its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim was extended to 4:00 PM on 23 December 2024. The Court also acknowledged the discontinuance of the Additional Claim against Fenchurch Faris Limited and reserved the issue of costs for future determination, granting the parties liberty to apply should further judicial intervention be required.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners in DIFC insurance litigation?
This case illustrates the DIFC Court’s willingness to grant extended stays to facilitate complex settlement negotiations in high-value reinsurance disputes. Practitioners should note that the Court expects transparency during such stays; the Defendants are under a specific undertaking to notify the Claimant of any actual, threatened, or anticipated litigation regarding the underlying policy (Policy No. P/01/6005/2018/4) during the stay period. Furthermore, the order highlights the procedural efficiency of using consent orders to resolve ancillary disputes, such as the discontinuance of third-party claims, without the need for contested hearings.
Where can I read the full judgment in Qatar Reinsurance Company Limited v (1) Orient Insurance PJSC (2) Orient UNB Takaful and Fenchurch Faris Limited [2024] DIFC CFI 009?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0092022-qatar-reinsurance-company-limited-v-1-orient-insuanrance-pjsc-2-orient-unb-takaful-and-fenchurch-faris-limited-2 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-009-2022_20241126.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law citations were included in this consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) — General Case Management Powers
- DIFC Court Law — Procedural Authority for Consent Orders