This consent order formalizes a procedural adjustment to the evidence submission timeline in the ongoing liquidation-related litigation involving Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited.
What is the nature of the dispute between Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Mr Elie Vivien Sassoon in CFI 009/2023?
The litigation concerns complex claims arising from the liquidation of Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited. The Claimants, represented by the Official Liquidator Georgina Marie Eason, have initiated proceedings against multiple defendants, including Mr Elie Vivien Sassoon, Mr Stephane Emile Astruc, Mr Edmond Carton, Bank J Safra Sarasin Limited, and J Safra Sarasin (Middle East) Limited. The dispute involves allegations that necessitate extensive disclosure and evidentiary support, forming the basis of the ongoing insolvency-related claims.
The procedural history of this case is extensive, involving multiple interlocutory applications regarding service, jurisdiction, and the consolidation of insolvency and Part 7 claims. As noted in the recent procedural history:
Paragraph 1 of the Consent Order shall be amended such that the parties shall file and serve any evidence by 6pm (GST) on 31 October 2024.
This specific order serves to refine the timeline for the parties to finalize their evidentiary submissions ahead of the scheduled Disclosure Hearing. For context on the broader procedural trajectory of this matter, see BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v MR ELIE VIVIEN SASSOON [2023] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural refusal of adjournment and cross-examination (25 August 2023), BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v MR ELIE VIVIEN SASSOON [2023] DIFC CFI 009 — Jurisdiction and service challenges in corporate insolvency (15 September 2023), Bank Sarasin-alpen v Elie Vivien Sassoon [2023] DIFC CFI 009 — Procedural finality in cross-border service (01 November 2023), BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v MR ELIE VIVIEN SASSOON [2024] DIFC CFI 009 — Consolidation of insolvency and Part 7 claims (07 February 2024), and BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v MR ELIE VIVIEN SASSOON [2024] DIFC CFI 009 — Dismissal of strike-out and summary judgment applications in insolvency-related fraud claims (30 April 2024).
Which judge presided over the consent order in CFI 009/2023 on 01 November 2024?
The order was issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance under the supervision of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke. The document was formally issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo on 1 November 2024 at 8:00 AM, following the agreement between the parties to modify the previously established evidentiary deadlines.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the amendment of the evidence filing deadline?
The parties, having engaged in ongoing case management, reached a mutual agreement to adjust the procedural timetable. By submitting a consent order, the Claimants and the Defendants sought to avoid the necessity of a contested hearing regarding the extension of time. This cooperative approach reflects the parties' alignment on the necessity of ensuring that all relevant evidence is properly filed and served before the upcoming Disclosure Hearing, which was scheduled for 6 November 2024.
What was the specific legal question the court had to answer regarding the amendment of the Consent Order?
The court was required to determine whether it should exercise its case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to formalize an amendment to a previously issued Consent Order. The primary issue was the procedural adjustment of the deadline for the filing and service of evidence, ensuring that the court's calendar remained aligned with the parties' readiness for the substantive Disclosure Hearing.
How did Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the court's case management discretion in CFI 009/2023?
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke exercised the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage the proceedings efficiently by endorsing the parties' agreement. By formalizing the request as a Consent Order, the court ensured that the procedural timeline was updated without disrupting the broader schedule of the litigation. The reasoning focused on the necessity of procedural certainty for the parties involved in complex liquidation proceedings.
Paragraph 1 of the Consent Order shall be amended such that the parties shall file and serve any evidence by 6pm (GST) on 31 October 2024.
This action reflects the court's commitment to facilitating the orderly progression of the case, ensuring that all parties are prepared for the subsequent Disclosure Hearing.
Which specific RDC rules and previous orders were referenced in the 01 November 2024 Consent Order?
The order explicitly references the Case Management Order (CMC Order) dated 20 June 2024, the Amended Case Management Order dated 2 October 2024, and the preceding Consent Order dated 30 October 2024. These documents collectively form the procedural framework governing the disclosure and evidence-gathering phases of the litigation. The court's authority to issue such orders is derived from the RDC, which empowers the DIFC Courts to manage cases actively and to vary directions by consent where appropriate.
How did the court utilize the previous Case Management Orders in the context of this latest amendment?
The court used the previous orders as the foundational timeline against which the new deadline was measured. By referencing the CMC Order of 20 June 2024 and the subsequent amendments, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke maintained continuity in the case management process. This approach ensures that all parties remain bound by a clear, documented sequence of obligations, preventing ambiguity regarding the status of evidence submission in the lead-up to the Disclosure Hearing.
What was the final disposition of the application for the amendment of the evidence deadline?
The court granted the application by consent. The order explicitly amended paragraph 1 of the previous Consent Order to mandate that all parties file and serve any evidence by 6:00 PM (GST) on 31 October 2024. No further costs or penalties were recorded in this specific order, as the parties reached a mutual resolution regarding the procedural adjustment.
What are the wider implications for practitioners managing complex liquidation cases in the DIFC?
This case highlights the importance of proactive case management and the utility of consent orders in complex, multi-party insolvency litigation. Practitioners should anticipate that the DIFC Courts will prioritize the adherence to established timelines but remain open to procedural adjustments when parties demonstrate a cooperative approach to case management. The reliance on successive consent orders in this case underscores the necessity of maintaining meticulous records of all procedural directions, as each order builds upon the last to define the current obligations of the parties.
Where can I read the full judgment in BANK SARASIN-ALPEN v MR ELIE VIVIEN SASSOON [2024] DIFC CFI 009?
The full text of the Consent Order dated 1 November 2024 can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0092023-1-bank-sarasin-alpen-me-limited-liquidation-2-georgina-marie-eason-her-capacity-official-liquidator-bank-sarasin-alp-3 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-009-2023_20241101.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited v Mr Elie Vivien Sassoon | [2023] DIFC CFI 009 | Primary case file |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (Law No. 10 of 2004)