This consent order formalizes a significant financial arrangement between the parties, establishing a structured payment schedule for security for costs totaling AED 7,350,000 to ensure the ongoing viability of the litigation.
What is the specific dispute regarding security for costs between Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited?
The litigation, registered under CFI-020-2015, involves claims brought by Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil against Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited. The core of this specific procedural dispute concerned the Defendant’s requirement for security for costs to mitigate the financial risk associated with defending the claim. Following extensive correspondence between the parties—initiated by an open offer from the Claimants on 24 September 2017 and accepted by the Defendant on 5 October 2017—the parties reached a consensus on the quantum and payment structure.
The agreement mandates that the Claimants deposit a total of AED 7,350,000 into the DIFC Courts. This amount is intended to cover the Defendant's legal costs throughout the duration of the proceedings. By settling this matter via a consent order, the parties avoided a contested hearing on the merits of a security for costs application. As noted in the court's order:
The Defendant accepts the provision by the Claimants of the Security Amount in accordance with the terms set out herein as being sufficient security for all of the Defendant’s costs in the proceedings and shall not make an application for any further security for costs pending the final determination of these proceedings.
Further context on the procedural history of this case can be found in the related order: MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2017] DIFC CFI 020 — Compelling production of the Saudi Capital Markets Authority report (05 February 2017).
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI-020-2015 on 07 November 2017?
The consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Lema Hatim, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued on 07 November 2017, following the parties' agreement on the terms of security for costs reached through correspondence in September and October 2017.
What were the respective positions of the Claimants and Protiviti Member Firm regarding the security for costs application?
The Claimants, Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil and Adel Bin Mohammad Bin Hamad Al-Mojil, sought to resolve the Defendant's potential application for security for costs by making an open offer on 24 September 2017. Their position was to provide a fixed sum to satisfy the Defendant's concerns regarding cost recovery, thereby avoiding the costs and judicial time associated with a contested application.
Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Limited, as the Defendant, accepted the offer on 5 October 2017, provided that the security was structured in a manner that guaranteed payment. The parties subsequently negotiated the specific tranches of payment to ensure the Defendant was adequately protected throughout the lifecycle of the litigation. This collaborative approach allowed the parties to bypass a formal hearing, focusing instead on the implementation of the payment schedule.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the security for costs in CFI-020-2015?
The Court was not required to adjudicate a contested application for security for costs, as the parties had already reached a consensus. Instead, the legal question before the Court was whether the proposed agreement met the requirements for a consent order under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the Court had to verify that the terms were clear, enforceable, and that the proposed security amount of AED 7,350,000 was sufficient to satisfy the Defendant's potential cost exposure, thereby allowing the Court to formalize the agreement as a binding order.
How did Assistant Registrar Lema Hatim apply the principles of party autonomy in the context of the consent order?
Assistant Registrar Lema Hatim exercised the Court's authority to give effect to the agreement reached by the parties. By formalizing the consent order, the Court acknowledged that the parties had exercised their autonomy to define the parameters of their procedural obligations. The reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the security provided and the finality of the arrangement.
The Court ensured that the payment schedule was clearly defined to prevent future disputes regarding the timing of the security deposits. The order explicitly binds the Defendant, preventing them from seeking further security, which provides the Claimants with procedural certainty. As stated in the order:
The Defendant accepts the provision by the Claimants of the Security Amount in accordance with the terms set out herein as being sufficient security for all of the Defendant’s costs in the proceedings and shall not make an application for any further security for costs pending the final determination of these proceedings.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural frameworks were relevant to the issuance of this consent order?
The issuance of this order is governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those pertaining to the Court's power to record and enforce agreements between parties. While the order does not cite specific RDC sections, it operates under the general procedural framework of the DIFC Courts, which encourages parties to resolve interlocutory matters such as security for costs through negotiation. The order also references the "liberty to apply" clause, which is a standard procedural mechanism under the RDC allowing parties to return to the Court for enforcement or implementation issues.
How does this order interact with the broader procedural history of the CFI-020-2015 case family?
This order is one of several procedural milestones in the ongoing dispute between the Al-Mojil claimants and Protiviti. It follows previous procedural developments, such as the order regarding the production of the Saudi Capital Markets Authority report. By settling the security for costs issue, the parties cleared a significant procedural hurdle that could have otherwise stalled the substantive progress of the case.
Other relevant orders in this case family include:
- MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2015] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural adjournment by consent (04 October 2015)
- MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Jurisdiction over DIFC-registered entities in cross-border tort claims (03 January 2016)
- Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Leave to appeal granted (18 February 2016)
- MOHAMMAD BIN HAMAD ABDUL-KARIM AL-MOJIL v PROTIVITI MEMBER FIRM [2016] DIFC CFI 020 — Procedural extension by consent (24 November 2016)
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Court?
The Court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The Claimants were ordered to pay a total of AED 7,350,000 into the DIFC Courts as security for costs. This payment was structured into three tranches:
1. AED 3,675,000 within 3 working days of the order.
2. AED 1,837,500 on 15 January 2018.
3. AED 1,837,500 on 15 April 2018.
The order also specified that there would be no order as to costs regarding the application itself, reflecting the cooperative nature of the agreement.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding security for costs applications?
This case demonstrates the efficacy of using consent orders to manage high-value security for costs disputes. By agreeing to a structured payment plan, parties can avoid the uncertainty and expense of a contested application. Practitioners should note that once such an order is in place, the Defendant is effectively barred from seeking further security, providing a degree of procedural finality that can be beneficial for long-term litigation strategy. It highlights the Court's willingness to endorse negotiated procedural settlements, provided they are clearly articulated and satisfy the requirements of the RDC.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mohammad Bin Hamad Abdul-Karim Al-Mojil v Protiviti Member Firm [2017] DIFC CFI 020?
The full text of the consent order is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-020-2015-1mohammad-bin-hamad-abdul-karim-al-mojil-2adel-bin-mohammad-bin-hamad-al-mojil-v-protiviti-member-firm-middle-east or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI_CFI-020-2015_1_Mohammad_Bin_Hamad_Abdul-Karim_Al-Mojil_2_Adel_Bin_Mohammad_Bin_20171107.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)