THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2023] DIFC CFI 029 — Procedural extension for consolidated costs assessment (11 May 2023)

This consent order formalizes a revised procedural timetable for the assessment of costs following extensive litigation between The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid, ensuring the orderly progression of the consolidated costs assessment process.

What is the nature of the dispute between The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid that necessitated this 11 May 2023 consent order?

The litigation between The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid has been a protracted matter involving multiple stages of proceedings, including both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The current dispute centers on the finalization of costs following the substantive resolution of the underlying claims. The parties are engaged in a Consolidated Costs Assessment, which requires the exchange of detailed bills of costs, points of dispute, and replies to ensure that the legal expenses incurred throughout the multi-year litigation are appropriately quantified and settled.

This specific order serves as a procedural milestone, adjusting the deadlines established in previous agreements to accommodate the parties' administrative requirements. As noted in the record:

The Court ordered amendments to the procedural deadlines for the service of bills of costs, points of dispute, and replies, and the filing of a request for a hearing for the Consolidated Costs Assessment.

The matter is part of a long-standing series of procedural interactions, including THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2018] DIFC CFI 029 — Procedural consolidation and case management (14 August 2018), THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2018] DIFC CFI 029 — Default judgment set-aside and stay of execution (25 October 2018), THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2019] DIFC CFI 029 — Refusal of permission to appeal default judgment (16 January 2019), THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2019] DIFC CFI 029 — Judicial Officer rejects procedural extension for pleadings (16 April 2019), and THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2019] DIFC CFI 029 — Compelling disclosure via Redfern Schedule (16 July 2019).

Which DIFC Court official presided over the issuance of the 11 May 2023 consent order in CFI 029/2018?

The order was issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo within the Court of First Instance. The document was formally issued on 11 May 2023 at 3:00 PM, following a review of email correspondence submitted by the legal representatives of both parties to the DIFC Courts Registry.

What specific procedural arguments led the parties to request an amendment to the March 2023 Consent Order?

While the specific tactical arguments remain private to the parties' correspondence, the request for an amendment was driven by the practical necessity of aligning the timeline for the Consolidated Costs Assessment with the parties' current capacity to prepare and exchange complex financial documentation. The parties, having reached a mutual agreement on the revised schedule, sought the Court’s intervention to formalize these new dates, thereby avoiding potential procedural defaults that might have arisen under the previous March 2023 Consent Order.

What was the precise legal question before the Court regarding the amendment of procedural deadlines in CFI 029/2018?

The Court was tasked with determining whether to exercise its case management powers to vary existing procedural directions by consent. The legal question was not one of substantive law, but rather a procedural inquiry into whether the proposed amendments to the timeline for the service of bills of costs, points of dispute, and replies were consistent with the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to deal with cases justly and efficiently.

How did Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of the 11 May 2023 Consent Order?

The Assistant Registrar exercised the Court's authority to give effect to the parties' consensus regarding the management of their own litigation timeline. By reviewing the correspondence and confirming the agreement, the Court ensured that the procedural steps remained aligned with the parties' expectations while maintaining the Court's oversight of the costs assessment process. As stated in the order:

The Court ordered amendments to the procedural deadlines for the service of bills of costs, points of dispute, and replies, and the filing of a request for a hearing for the Consolidated Costs Assessment.

This approach reflects the Court's preference for facilitating party-led resolutions to procedural bottlenecks, provided that such resolutions do not impede the ultimate finality of the litigation.

Which specific RDC provisions and prior orders were referenced as the foundation for the 11 May 2023 Consent Order?

The order was predicated upon a series of prior judicial decisions and agreements that established the framework for the current costs assessment. These included the Order with Reasons of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 17 June 2022, the Order with Reasons of the Court of Appeal dated 30 November 2022, and the Order with Reasons of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 10 March 2023. Furthermore, the order explicitly referenced the "March Consent Order" (dated 24 March 2023) and a subsequent Consent Order dated 24 April 2023, which provided the structural basis for the amendments granted on 11 May 2023.

How did the Court utilize the prior orders of Justice Sir Richard Field in structuring the current costs assessment?

The prior orders of Justice Sir Richard Field served as the jurisdictional and procedural bedrock for the current assessment. By incorporating the history of these orders into the preamble of the 11 May 2023 Consent Order, the Court maintained continuity in the litigation. The current order functions as an iterative adjustment to the framework established by Justice Field, ensuring that the transition from substantive judgment to the final assessment of costs remains consistent with the judicial guidance provided in the earlier stages of the case.

What was the final disposition of the 11 May 2023 order regarding the Consolidated Costs Assessment?

The Court granted the request for an extension of deadlines by consent. The specific orders were as follows:
1. Service of notices of commencement and bills of costs for CFI and Appeal proceedings by 4:00 PM on 26 May 2023.
2. Service of points of dispute by 4:00 PM on 9 June 2023.
3. Service of replies to points of dispute by 4:00 PM on 30 June 2023.
4. Filing of a request for a hearing for the Consolidated Costs Assessment by 4:00 PM on 18 August 2023.
The Court also ordered that the costs of this specific consent order be "costs in the case," meaning they will be subject to the final costs determination.

What are the practical implications for practitioners managing complex costs assessments in the DIFC?

This order highlights the importance of maintaining a clear and documented procedural history when managing multi-stage costs assessments. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts are willing to facilitate procedural flexibility through consent orders, provided that the parties maintain clear communication with the Registry. However, the reliance on a sequence of prior orders underscores that once a procedural framework is established, any deviation must be explicitly linked to the existing record to ensure the Court can effectively manage the transition toward a final hearing.

Where can I read the full judgment in The Industrial Group v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid [2023] DIFC CFI 029?

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-029-2018-industrial-group-ltd-v-abdelazim-el-shikh-el-fadil-hamid-8 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-029-2018_20230511.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) — General Case Management Powers