MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural consolidation and waiver of costs (10 June 2020)

This consent order formalizes a procedural reset in the ongoing litigation between Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam and Express Telecom Group, facilitating the filing of amended pleadings and the mutual resolution of outstanding cost liabilities.

What is the nature of the dispute between Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam and Express Telecom Group in CFI 015/2019?

The litigation involves a claim brought by Musaab Tag Elsir Abdelsalam against Express Telecom Group. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing pleadings, the case has been characterized by a series of procedural developments regarding the scope of the claim and the allocation of costs. The matter is currently in a phase of refinement, where the parties have sought to clarify the issues in dispute through the submission of amended Particulars of Claim.

This specific order serves as a procedural milestone, allowing the Claimant to adjust his position before the Court. It follows earlier procedural maneuvers in the case, including: MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Procedural adjournment pending immediate judgment (24 July 2019) and MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 015 — Deferral of costs assessment pending immediate judgment (21 November 2019). The current order effectively clears the deck of previous cost orders to allow the parties to focus on the amended substantive arguments.

Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 015/2019?

The consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Courts, Court of First Instance, on 10 June 2020. As a procedural order, it reflects the Court’s role in facilitating the parties' agreement to streamline the litigation process and manage the timeline for the exchange of amended pleadings.

What specific legal positions did the parties adopt regarding the amendment of pleadings and the waiver of costs?

The parties reached a consensus to move forward by amending the existing pleadings, thereby avoiding further litigation over the current state of the Particulars of Claim. By agreeing to this timeline, both the Claimant and the Respondent have signaled a willingness to refine the issues before the Court, which is a common practice under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to ensure that the final trial is focused on the most relevant and up-to-date arguments.

Furthermore, the parties agreed to resolve the issue of costs that had been previously awarded in the Court’s order dated 10 March 2020. The Claimant, in a move to facilitate the progression of the case, agreed to waive the costs that had been imposed against the Respondent. This waiver is a significant procedural concession that removes a potential point of friction, allowing the parties to move past the financial disputes associated with earlier interlocutory applications. As noted in the order:

The costs imposed in paragraph 2 of the 10 March Order, against the Respondent, and in favour of the Claimant have been waived by the Claimant.

What was the jurisdictional and procedural question the Court had to address in this consent order?

The primary question before the Court was whether to grant leave for the amendment of the Particulars of Claim under the RDC and whether to formalize the parties' agreement to vacate a prior cost order. The Court had to ensure that the proposed timeline for the filing of the amended Particulars of Claim and the subsequent filing of objections by the Respondent complied with the procedural standards of the DIFC Courts. By issuing this as a consent order, the Court affirmed that the parties' agreement was consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC, which encourages the efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes.

How did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the principles of procedural efficiency to the consent order?

The Deputy Registrar exercised the Court's authority to manage the case timeline by setting a clear 28-day window for the Claimant to file his amended Particulars of Claim, starting from 20 May 2020. This structured approach ensures that the litigation does not languish in uncertainty. By incorporating the waiver of costs into the same order, the Court effectively cleaned up the procedural record, ensuring that the parties could proceed to the merits without the distraction of enforcing previous cost awards.

The reasoning is rooted in the Court’s inherent power to approve consent orders that simplify the issues between parties. By validating the agreement, the Court avoids the need for further hearings on the matter of costs or the timing of pleadings. The specific mechanism for this is found in the Court's recognition of the parties' mutual agreement, as evidenced by the following:

The costs imposed in paragraph 2 of the 10 March Order, against the Respondent, and in favour of the Claimant have been waived by the Claimant.

Which specific RDC rules and prior orders were applied to reach this outcome?

The Court relied on Part 18 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts, which governs the amendment of statements of case. This rule provides the framework for parties to amend their pleadings, either with the permission of the Court or by consent. By invoking this rule, the Court ensured that the amendment process was conducted in accordance with established DIFC procedural standards.

Additionally, the Court referenced its own previous order dated 10 March 2020. This reference was necessary to establish the context for the cost waiver and to define the timeline for the Respondent’s objections. By linking the current order to the 10 March Order, the Court maintained a clear chain of procedural history, which is essential for the effective management of complex commercial litigation.

How did the Court utilize the 10 March 2020 Order in the context of the current proceedings?

The 10 March 2020 Order served as the baseline for the current procedural adjustments. The Court used it as a reference point to identify the specific costs that were being waived and to establish the deadline for the Respondent’s objections to the amended Particulars of Claim. By explicitly mentioning the 10 March Order, the Court ensured that there was no ambiguity regarding which costs were being waived and which procedural steps remained outstanding. This use of prior orders is a standard practice in the DIFC Courts to ensure continuity and to prevent the re-litigation of issues that have already been addressed in previous interlocutory stages.

What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted by the Court?

The Court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The specific relief included:
1. Granting the Claimant 28 days from 20 May 2020 to file amended Particulars of Claim.
2. Granting the Respondent 28 days from the receipt of the amended Particulars of Claim to file its objections.
3. Formally recording the waiver of costs previously awarded against the Respondent in the 10 March 2020 Order.
No further monetary relief was awarded, and the order effectively neutralized the previous cost liability, leaving the parties to proceed with the substantive phase of the litigation.

What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners in the DIFC?

This case highlights the importance of using consent orders to manage procedural friction. For practitioners, it serves as a reminder that cost orders and pleading deadlines are not always set in stone and can be strategically managed through negotiation. By waiving costs, the Claimant in this case successfully cleared a procedural hurdle that might have otherwise delayed the substantive progression of the claim. Practitioners should anticipate that the DIFC Courts will readily facilitate such agreements, provided they are clearly documented and align with the RDC. This approach reduces the burden on the Court and allows parties to focus their resources on the core issues of the dispute.

Where can I read the full judgment in MUSAAB TAG ELSIR ABDELSALAM v EXPRESS TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 015?

The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0152019-musaab-tag-elsir-abdelsalam-v-express-telecom-group-ltd or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-015-2019_20200610.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 18