RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2020] DIFC CFI 014 — Final discontinuance via confidential settlement (22 April 2020)

This consent order marks the formal conclusion of long-standing banking litigation in the DIFC, resulting in the total discontinuance of the proceedings following a private settlement between the parties.

What were the specific claims brought by Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi against Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited in CFI 014/2016?

The litigation, registered under case number CFI 014/2016, involved a complex dispute between three claimants—Rafed Abdel Mohsen Bader Al Khorafi, Amrah Ali Abdel Latif Al Hamad, and Alia Mohamed Sulaiman Al Rifai—and two defendants, Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Limited and Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd. The dispute centered on allegations arising from the claimants' banking relationship with the defendants, which had been the subject of extensive procedural activity within the DIFC Courts since 2016.

The litigation was characterized by a series of interlocutory skirmishes, including procedural adjustments and extensions for the filing of defences, as documented in previous orders such as AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2016] DIFC CFI 014 — Procedural timeline adjustment via consent order (21 November 2016). The matter remained active for nearly four years, involving multiple procedural amendments and service-related challenges, including those addressed in AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2017] DIFC CFI 014 — Extension of service deadline following corporate insolvency (13 April 2017). The final resolution was reached only after the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement on 6 February 2020, effectively bringing the substantive dispute to a close.

Which DIFC Court official issued the final consent order in the Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen matter on 22 April 2020?

The final consent order in CFI 014/2016 was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally dated 21 April 2020 and subsequently processed on 22 April 2020, finalizing the discontinuance of the proceedings.

How did the parties in CFI 014/2016 resolve the dispute before the Court of First Instance?

The parties reached a resolution through a private, confidential settlement agreement executed on 6 February 2020. This agreement served as the foundation for the subsequent consent order, which allowed the claimants to formally discontinue their action against the defendants. By opting for a confidential settlement, the parties avoided a public trial on the merits of the banking claims, which had previously faced significant procedural hurdles, including arguments regarding time-bar and abuse of process, as noted in MR RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN ALPEN [2018] DIFC CFI 014 — Abuse of process and time-bar in banking litigation (18 April 2018).

What was the specific legal question regarding the procedural status of the claim that the Court had to address before issuing the order?

The primary legal question before the Court was whether the proceedings could be formally discontinued in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) following the parties' private settlement. The Court had to ensure that the procedural requirements for discontinuance were met, particularly given that the claimants had already served a Notice of Discontinuance against the Second Defendant. The Court’s role was to formalize the parties' agreement into a binding order, thereby ensuring that the litigation was fully and finally settled without the need for further judicial intervention or adjudication on the underlying banking claims.

What reasoning did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi apply to finalize the discontinuance of CFI 014/2016?

The Deputy Registrar’s reasoning was predicated on the principle of party autonomy in civil litigation, specifically the ability of parties to resolve disputes through private settlement agreements. By acknowledging the existence of the settlement agreement dated 6 February 2020, the Court exercised its authority to give effect to the parties' mutual desire to terminate the litigation. The order reflects the Court's standard practice of facilitating the conclusion of cases where the parties have reached a consensus, thereby conserving judicial resources.

The order explicitly states: "AND UPON the parties having agreed to fully and finally settle all matters in connection with the above-referenced proceedings pursuant to the terms set forth in an agreement dated 6 February 2020 which is confidential between the parties." This reliance on the settlement agreement provided the necessary justification for the Court to order the discontinuance of the entire case.

Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the process of discontinuance applied in this case?

While the order does not cite specific RDC sections, the procedure for discontinuance in the DIFC is governed by RDC Part 38. RDC 38.1 allows a claimant to discontinue all or part of a claim at any time. The process typically requires the claimant to file a notice of discontinuance and serve it on every other party. In this instance, the parties utilized a consent order to formalize the discontinuance, which is a common practice in the DIFC Courts to ensure that the settlement terms are reflected in the court record and that the case is removed from the active docket.

How did the Court handle the issue of costs in the final order of 22 April 2020?

The Court ordered "No order as to costs." This is a standard provision in consent orders where parties have reached a settlement, as it reflects the parties' agreement to bear their own legal expenses. By stipulating that there is no order as to costs, the Court effectively prevents either party from seeking a recovery of legal fees from the other, which is a common feature of negotiated settlements in complex banking litigation.

What is the final outcome of the litigation between Al Khorafi and Bank Sarasin-Alpen?

The final outcome is the total discontinuance of Case CFI 014/2016. The order effectively terminates the proceedings, meaning that the claims brought by the three claimants against the two defendants are no longer active before the DIFC Court of First Instance. There is no monetary award or judgment on the merits, as the settlement terms remain confidential. The litigation, which spanned four years and involved numerous procedural orders, is now concluded with no further liability for costs.

What does this case imply for future litigants involved in long-running banking disputes in the DIFC?

This case highlights the efficacy of the DIFC Courts' procedural framework in facilitating the resolution of complex, long-standing disputes through settlement. For future litigants, the case demonstrates that even after years of intense procedural litigation—including disputes over service, time-bars, and abuse of process—the Court remains supportive of parties reaching a private, confidential resolution. Practitioners should anticipate that the DIFC Courts will readily facilitate the formal closure of proceedings via consent orders once a settlement is reached, provided the procedural requirements for discontinuance are satisfied. This outcome reinforces the value of mediation and private negotiation as a means to achieve finality in high-stakes banking litigation.

Where can I read the full judgment in RAFED ABDEL MOHSEN BADER AL KHORAFI v BANK SARASIN-ALPEN [2020] DIFC CFI 014?

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-0142016-1-rafed-abdel-mohsen-bader-al-khorafi-2-amrah-ali-abdel-latif-al-hamad-3-alia-mohamed-sulaiman-al-rifai-v-1-bank-sar or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-014-2016_20200422.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 38 (Discontinuance)