This consent order formalizes the parties' agreement to modify the existing case management timeline and vacate a scheduled conference in the ongoing dispute between Hexagon Holdings and the DIFC Authority.
What specific procedural modifications were requested by Hexagon Holdings and the DIFC Authority in the 16 August 2021 consent order?
The litigation, initiated under CFI 013/2019, involves Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited as the Claimant against the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority and Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC. This specific order addresses the administrative mechanics of the discovery and expert evidence phase of the proceedings. By mutual agreement, the parties sought to adjust the deadlines established in the earlier Case Management Order issued by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 1 March 2021.
The primary driver for this application was the Claimant’s agreement to grant the Defendants a 14-day extension for the filing and service of their expert reports. This adjustment necessitated a corresponding update to the court’s procedural calendar, specifically regarding the paragraphs governing the expert evidence exchange. As stipulated in the order:
Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the CM Order be amended in the manner shown in track changes in Annexure 1 to this Order.
This adjustment reflects the ongoing nature of the dispute, which has seen multiple procedural developments, including the HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2019] DIFC CFI 013 — Strike-out and immediate judgment on contract termination (25 March 2020) and subsequent HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2021] DIFC CFI 013 — Case Management Order (01 March 2021). The full text of the order can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judicial officer presided over the issuance of the 16 August 2021 consent order in CFI 013/2019?
The order was issued by Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban within the Court of First Instance. While the underlying Case Management Order was authored by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, this specific administrative consent order was processed by the Registry to reflect the parties' agreement to vacate the Second Case Management Conference, which had been originally scheduled for 17 August 2021.
What arguments did the parties present to justify the vacation of the Second Case Management Conference?
The parties did not engage in adversarial argument regarding the vacation of the Second Case Management Conference; rather, they presented a unified position to the Court. The Claimant and the Defendants reached a consensus that the conference, originally set for 17 August 2021, was no longer necessary in light of the agreed-upon extension for expert reports. By filing a consent application, the parties effectively bypassed the need for a formal hearing, demonstrating a cooperative approach to managing the case timeline. This follows the pattern established in the HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY [2021] DIFC CFI 013 — Consent order adjourning the second case management conference (17 June 2021), where the parties similarly utilized the Court’s procedural flexibility to manage the litigation schedule.
What was the specific doctrinal issue the Court addressed regarding the amendment of the CM Order?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the proposed amendments to the Case Management Order (CMO) of 1 March 2021 were consistent with the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The issue was not one of substantive law, but of procedural efficiency. The Court had to ensure that the 14-day extension for expert evidence did not prejudice the overall trial readiness or violate the principles of case management. By granting the order, the Court affirmed that parties are permitted to refine their procedural timelines by consent, provided such refinements do not unduly delay the resolution of the dispute or impose unnecessary costs on the court system.
How did the Court apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of the 16 August 2021 order?
The Court exercised its discretion to facilitate the parties' agreement, recognizing that the efficient management of complex commercial litigation often requires flexibility. By adopting the changes proposed in the Annexure, the Court effectively delegated the timeline adjustment to the parties while maintaining judicial oversight. The reasoning process was straightforward: the parties reached a consensus on a 14-day extension, and the Court, seeing no conflict with the RDC, formalized this agreement. As noted in the order:
Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the CM Order be amended in the manner shown in track changes in Annexure 1 to this Order.
This approach underscores the Court’s reliance on the RDC’s provisions for case management, which encourage parties to resolve procedural disputes without judicial intervention.
Which specific RDC rules govern the amendment of case management orders by consent?
The Court’s authority to issue this order is derived from the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those pertaining to case management and the Court's general powers of management. RDC Part 26 provides the framework for case management, granting the Court broad discretion to vary directions. Furthermore, RDC Part 40 governs the form and content of orders, allowing for consent orders to be issued where parties have reached an agreement on procedural matters. These rules allow the Court to adjust timelines for the filing of expert reports, as was done here, to ensure that the evidence presented is comprehensive and that the parties have sufficient time to prepare their respective positions.
How does this order interact with the previous directions issued in CFI 013/2019?
The order functions as a direct modification of the Case Management Order dated 1 March 2021. It does not replace the previous order but rather updates specific paragraphs (17-19) to reflect the new expert report filing deadlines. This is a standard practice in DIFC litigation, where the "CM Order" serves as the master document for the case timeline. By linking the amendment to the original order, the Court ensures that the procedural history of the case remains clear and that all parties are aware of the current, binding deadlines. This continuity is essential for the orderly progression of the case toward trial.
What was the final disposition regarding the costs of the application?
The Court ordered that the costs of the application be "in the case." This is a standard provision in consent orders where both parties have agreed to the procedural adjustment. It means that the costs incurred in making this application will be decided at the conclusion of the litigation, typically following the final judgment, and will be awarded to the prevailing party or as otherwise determined by the Court at that time. This prevents the parties from litigating the costs of a minor procedural amendment while the main dispute remains ongoing.
What are the practical implications for practitioners managing complex litigation in the DIFC?
This order highlights the importance of utilizing consent applications to manage procedural timelines in the DIFC. Practitioners should note that the Court is generally amenable to adjustments that are agreed upon by all parties, provided they are clearly documented and do not cause significant disruption to the trial schedule. The use of "track changes" in an annexure is a best practice for ensuring that the Court and the parties have a clear record of the modifications being made to existing orders. This case serves as a reminder that procedural flexibility is a key feature of the DIFC Courts, provided that the parties maintain a cooperative stance throughout the litigation process.
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 dated 16 August 2021 can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at the following link: 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-5. The CDN link for the document is https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-013-2019_20210816.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| HEXAGON HOLDINGS v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY | [2021] DIFC CFI 013 | Reference to the original CM Order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 26 (Case Management)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 40 (Orders)