This Further Amended Case Management Order establishes the procedural roadmap for the high-stakes litigation between the Al-Mojil claimants and Protiviti Member Firm, setting definitive deadlines for expert testimony and trial documentation ahead of a four-week trial.
What is the nature of the dispute in Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited and what is the status of the claimants' application to strike out evidence?
The lawsuit involves claims brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The dispute centers on professional services rendered by the defendant, specifically regarding a report provided to the Capital Market Authority (CMA). The litigation involves complex allegations concerning forensic accounting, the application of Saudi Arabian law, and the methodology used for IPO pricing.
A significant point of contention during the case management phase was the claimants' attempt to exclude specific witness testimony. The claimants filed an application on 10 January 2017 seeking to strike out or exclude portions of the defendant's witness statements that referenced "MML." Regarding this application, the court ordered:
The Claimants’ Application is reserved to the trial judge.
This means that the determination of whether the contested evidence is admissible will not be decided during the interlocutory stage but will instead be deferred to the judge presiding over the substantive trial.
Which judge presided over the Case Management Conference for the February 2018 order in CFI 020/2015?
The Further Amended Case Management Order was issued by Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel. The order followed a Case Management Conference held before him on 15 January 2018, where counsel for both the claimants and the defendant appeared to finalize the procedural steps necessary to move the matter toward trial.
What specific legal arguments did the parties advance regarding the "MML evidence" and the procedural amendments to the case management order?
The parties engaged in a series of procedural maneuvers regarding the scope of evidence. The claimants sought to strike out parts of the defendant's witness statements that made reference to MML, arguing that such evidence was either irrelevant or prejudicial. Conversely, the defendant maintained the necessity of this evidence for their defense.
To mitigate potential prejudice while awaiting the trial judge's final ruling on the strike-out application, the court granted the claimants a specific procedural concession:
The Claimants have permission to serve a supplemental witness statement from the Second Claimant responding to the MML evidence, if so advised, by 4pm on 5 February 2017.
This allowed the claimants to address the contested evidence on the record without waiving their right to have the admissibility of the original statements challenged at trial.
What is the primary doctrinal issue the court had to resolve concerning the admissibility of expert evidence in this case?
The court was tasked with determining the framework for the introduction of highly specialized expert testimony. The central issue was not merely the admissibility of the reports themselves, but the synchronization of expert opinions across three distinct disciplines: forensic accounting, Saudi law, and IPO pricing. The court had to ensure that the experts—David Eastwood and Robert Chandler (Forensic Accounting), Ahmad Al Khamees and Dr. Mujahid Al Sawwaf (Saudi Law), and Stuart Amor and Jagdeep Singh Kang (IPO Pricing)—followed a structured process to narrow the issues before trial.
How did Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel structure the expert evidence process to ensure trial efficiency?
The court utilized a rigorous, multi-stage process for expert evidence, requiring experts to meet, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and produce joint memoranda. This approach is designed to prevent the trial from becoming bogged down in technical disputes that could be resolved beforehand. The court explicitly granted the parties the right to present these experts in court:
The Claimants and the Defendant shall have permission to call the experts providing Forensic Accounting Expert Evidence, Saudi Law Expert Evidence and IPO Pricing Expert Evidence to give evidence at trial.
By mandating that the experts meet and produce joint memoranda by March 2018, the court ensured that the trial judge would be presented with a refined set of issues, rather than a broad, unorganized collection of conflicting expert opinions.
Which RDC rules and specific statutes were applied to govern the expert reports and trial documentation?
The court relied heavily on the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the complexity of the litigation. Specifically, RDC Part 31 was invoked to govern the filing and service of the various expert reports. Additionally, RDC Part 35 was applied to regulate the preparation of trial bundles, the reading list, and the submission of skeleton arguments. Regarding the procedural requirements for the pre-trial review and progress monitoring, the court directed:
The parties are to comply with the requirements for filing documents for the hearing listed in paragraph 9 above in accordance with Part 26 of the RDC.
These rules collectively provide the framework for the court’s case management powers, ensuring that all parties adhere to strict deadlines for the exchange of evidence and trial materials.
How did the court utilize the precedent of previous case management orders in this litigation?
The court’s order was not issued in a vacuum but was the result of a long history of procedural development. The current order explicitly references the history of the case, noting the involvement of other members of the judiciary:
Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi on 14 March 2017
AND UPON
the parties having submitted agreed amendments to the Case Management Order of H.E.
The court used these previous orders as a foundation, incorporating agreed-upon amendments that reflected the evolving nature of the statements of case and the witness statements of fact. This demonstrates the court's reliance on a continuous, iterative process of case management to keep the litigation on track.
What are the specific trial obligations and deadlines imposed on the parties regarding trial bundles and the chronology of events?
The court imposed strict deadlines to ensure the trial, scheduled for four weeks starting 6 May 2018, proceeds without delay. The parties are required to cooperate on the preparation of the core bundle and the chronology. Regarding the chronology, the court ordered:
The parties shall prepare an agreed Chronology of significant events cross-referenced to significant documents, pleadings and witness statements which shall be filed with the Court by the Claimants
five clear days
before the start of the trial.
Furthermore, the court addressed the possibility of disagreement regarding the timeline of events:
In the event that there are areas of disagreement, the Chronology shall include an agreed Chronology and a Chronology of events which are disputed, with the parties’ respective positions outlined therein.
15.
Finally, the court mandated the preparation of a core bundle:
The parties shall cooperate in preparing a Core Bundle, to be lodged no later
than 7 clear days
before the start of the trial.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners regarding trial preparation and the use of "clear days" in DIFC litigation?
This order serves as a masterclass in trial preparation for complex commercial disputes in the DIFC. Practitioners should note the court's emphasis on "clear days" for filing deadlines, such as the requirement for the reading list:
An agreed reading list for trial along with an estimate of time required for reading and an estimated timetable for trial shall be filed with the Court by the Claimants no later than
seven clear days
before trial.
The order underscores the necessity of proactive cooperation between parties, particularly in the creation of joint expert memoranda and agreed chronologies. Litigants must anticipate that the DIFC Courts will enforce these deadlines strictly to maintain the integrity of the trial schedule, especially in cases involving multi-disciplinary expert evidence.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mohammad Bin Hamad Bin Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited [2018] DIFC CFI 020?
The full text of the Further Amended Case Management Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0202015-1-mohammad-bin-hamad-bin-abdul-karim-al-mojil-2-adel-bin-mohammad-bin-hamad-al-mojil-v-protiviti-member-firm-middle
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 26 (Case Management)
- RDC Part 31 (Expert Evidence)
- RDC Part 35 (Trial Bundles and Documentation)