This consent order marks a procedural pause in the ongoing litigation between Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC, deferring the scheduled second Case Management Conference.
Why did the parties in CFI 013/2019 seek to adjourn the second Case Management Conference scheduled for 8 July 2021?
The dispute between Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the defendants, Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC, involves complex allegations surrounding contract termination and associated liabilities. This litigation, which has seen significant procedural activity including previous strike-out applications and appeals, reached a point in mid-2021 where the parties determined that the scheduled second Case Management Conference (CMC) was no longer appropriate for the current state of the proceedings.
The parties reached a mutual agreement to postpone the hearing, reflecting a strategic decision to manage the litigation timeline outside of the original schedule set by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke. As noted in the formal order:
The second CMC listed for 8 July 2021 be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Reg-istry.
This adjournment allows the parties to align their procedural requirements before returning to the Court of First Instance. For further context on the underlying dispute, see HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2019] DIFC CFI 013 — Strike-out and immediate judgment on contract termination (25 March 2020).
Which judicial officer issued the consent order for the adjournment of the CFI 013/2019 proceedings on 20 June 2021?
The order was issued by the Registrar of the DIFC Courts, Nour Hineidi, on 20 June 2021. While the underlying Case Management Order of 1 March 2021 was issued by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, the administrative adjournment of the 8 July 2021 CMC was processed through the Registry following the agreement of the parties.
What were the respective positions of Hexagon Holdings and the DIFC Authority regarding the procedural timeline in CFI 013/2019?
While the specific arguments for the adjournment were not detailed in the public consent order, the parties—Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited and the defendants (DIFC Authority and DIFC Investments LLC)—collectively moved the court to vacate the 8 July 2021 date. In the context of this long-running litigation, such requests typically arise from ongoing settlement discussions or the need to finalize complex pleadings following the earlier rulings on strike-out applications. By filing a consent order, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, signaling a cooperative approach to the current procedural impasse.
What is the specific procedural issue the Registrar addressed in the 20 June 2021 order concerning the CFI 013/2019 CMC?
The court was tasked with determining whether to maintain the court-mandated schedule for the second Case Management Conference or to grant the parties' request for an indefinite adjournment. The doctrinal issue centers on the court's case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to control the pace of litigation. The Registrar had to ensure that the adjournment did not prejudice the efficient resolution of the case while respecting the parties' autonomy to manage their own procedural timelines.
How did the Registrar exercise the court's discretion to adjourn the proceedings in CFI 013/2019?
The Registrar exercised the court's inherent case management authority to facilitate the parties' agreement. By formalizing the adjournment through a consent order, the court ensured that the procedural timeline remained flexible, allowing the parties to return to the court once they are prepared for the next stage of the litigation. The reasoning relies on the principle that the court should support party-led procedural adjustments where such adjustments do not undermine the overriding objective of the RDC.
The second CMC listed for 8 July 2021 be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Reg-istry.
This approach avoids the necessity of a formal hearing on the matter, effectively clearing the court's calendar while keeping the case active on the docket.
Which specific RDC rules and prior orders informed the procedural framework for the 20 June 2021 order?
The order was issued pursuant to the court's general case management powers and specifically referenced the previous Case Management Order issued by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 1 March 2021. The procedural framework is governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), particularly those sections concerning the court's power to adjourn hearings and manage the progress of claims. The Registrar's authority to issue such an order is derived from the administrative functions vested in the Registry to facilitate the efficient conduct of litigation within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
How do the previous rulings in the Hexagon Holdings case family influence the current procedural posture?
The case has a significant history of procedural challenges, including:
- HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CFI 013 — Permission to appeal granted (18 May 2020)
- HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2020] DIFC CFI 013 — Procedural directions for pleadings and CMC (05 November 2020)
These prior orders established the framework for the pleadings and the subsequent CMC schedule. The 20 June 2021 order serves as a modification to the directions established in the November 2020 and March 2021 orders, demonstrating the court's willingness to adapt the procedural timeline to the evolving needs of the parties.
What was the final disposition of the 20 June 2021 order regarding costs and the CMC schedule?
The court ordered that the second CMC, originally set for 8 July 2021, be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registry. Regarding the costs of the application, the court made no order, meaning each party bears its own costs associated with the adjournment request. This reflects the standard approach for consent-based procedural adjustments where no party is deemed the "successful" or "unsuccessful" party in a contested sense.
How does this adjournment impact the long-term litigation strategy for parties involved in DIFC CFI 013/2019?
For practitioners, this order underscores the importance of maintaining open communication with opposing counsel regarding procedural timelines. The ability to secure a consent adjournment prevents the unnecessary expenditure of legal fees on contested procedural hearings. However, litigants must anticipate that the Registry will eventually set a new date, and the court will expect the parties to be ready to proceed with the CMC at that time. This case demonstrates that even in high-stakes litigation involving the DIFC Authority, the court remains pragmatic regarding the scheduling of procedural milestones when parties are in agreement.
Where can I read the full judgment in HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2021] DIFC CFI 013?
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-013-2019-hexagon-holdings-cayman-limited-v-1-dubai-international-financial-centre-authority-2-dubai-international-financial-3 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-013-2019_20210620.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Hexagon Holdings v DIFC Authority | [2021] DIFC CFI 013 | Subject of the procedural order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (General Case Management Powers)