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, effectively pushing the final hearing request deadline to September 2023.
What is the specific nature of the dispute between The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid that necessitated this 26 May 2023 consent order?
The litigation between The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid has been a protracted affair involving multiple layers of procedural history, including substantive CFI proceedings and subsequent appellate review. The current dispute centers on the quantification and recovery of legal costs arising from these earlier stages. Following the resolution of the underlying merits, the parties have been engaged in a "Consolidated Costs Assessment," a process designed to reconcile the financial liabilities of the parties across both the CFI and Appeal proceedings.
The 26 May 2023 order serves as a procedural bridge, ensuring that the parties adhere to a structured timeline for the exchange of cost-related documentation. This follows a series of earlier procedural milestones in the case, 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)
THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP v ABDELAZIM EL SHIKH EL FADIL HAMID [2019] DIFC CFI 029 — Compelling disclosure via Redfern Schedule (16 July 2019)
The necessity for this specific order arose because the parties required additional time to finalize their respective bills of costs and points of dispute, as evidenced by the preamble noting the reliance on previous consent orders dated 24 March, 24 April, and 11 May 2023.
Which DIFC Court division and official oversaw the issuance of the 26 May 2023 consent order in CFI 029/2018?
The order was issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance. The document was formally issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo on 26 May 2023 at 12:00 PM, following a review of the email correspondence submitted by the parties' legal representatives.
What were the specific legal positions and procedural justifications advanced by the parties to secure this consent order?
The parties, The Industrial Group and Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid, adopted a collaborative stance, signaling to the Court that a negotiated extension of the procedural timeline was in the best interest of judicial economy. Rather than litigating the timing of the costs assessment, the parties utilized the mechanism of a consent order to formalize their agreement.
The legal representatives for both sides argued that the complexity of the "Consolidated Costs Assessment"—which encompasses both CFI and Appeal proceedings—required a more generous window for the service of bills of costs, points of dispute, and subsequent replies. By presenting a unified front to the Assistant Registrar, the parties effectively bypassed the need for a contested hearing on procedural timelines, ensuring that the court’s resources were preserved for the eventual substantive assessment of the costs themselves.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the procedural timeline for the Consolidated Costs Assessment?
The Court was tasked with determining whether to grant a formal extension to the deadlines previously established by the Consent Orders of 24 March, 24 April, and 11 May 2023. The doctrinal issue at hand was the Court’s discretion under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the case timeline in a manner that facilitates the efficient resolution of costs, while ensuring that the parties have sufficient time to prepare their respective positions on the quantum of legal fees.
The Court had to decide if the proposed dates—9 June 2023 for the service of bills of costs, 30 June 2023 for points of dispute, 18 August 2023 for replies, and 1 September 2023 for the hearing request—were consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost.
How did the Assistant Registrar apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of the Consolidated Costs Assessment?
The Assistant Registrar exercised the Court’s inherent case management powers by endorsing the agreement reached by the parties. The reasoning was predicated on the fact that the parties had already engaged in extensive prior litigation, including orders by Justice Sir Richard Field and the Court of Appeal, and were best positioned to determine the time required to compile their complex cost schedules.
The order reflects a judicial preference for party-led procedural management where such management does not prejudice the Court’s schedule. The reasoning is explicitly captured in the order's preamble:
"UPON reviewing email correspondence to the DIFC Courts Registry from the parties’ legal representatives with respect to the terms set out in this Consent Order AND UPON the parties having agreed to the terms set out in this Consent Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:"
By validating this agreement, the Court ensured that the procedural path toward the Consolidated Costs Assessment remained clear and undisputed, avoiding the risk of further interlocutory applications regarding the timing of document service.
Which specific DIFC statutes and procedural rules were invoked to facilitate the amendment of the costs assessment timeline?
The order operates within the framework of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those governing the assessment of costs and the Court’s general power to manage cases. While the order does not cite specific RDC numbers, it functions under the authority granted to the Court to amend previous orders and set new directions for the progress of a case. The order explicitly references the "Order with Reasons of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 17 June 2022" and the "Order with Reasons of the Court of Appeal dated 30 November 2022" as the foundational authorities that necessitate this assessment process.
How did the Court utilize the history of prior orders in CFI 029/2018 to justify the current procedural extension?
The Court utilized the history of the case to demonstrate that the current order is merely the latest in a series of procedural steps aimed at finalizing the litigation. By referencing the orders of Justice Sir Richard Field (17 June 2022 and 10 March 2023) and the Court of Appeal (30 November 2022), the Court established that the current costs assessment is the final stage of a long-standing legal battle. The Court treated the prior consent orders of 24 March, 24 April, and 11 May 2023 as evidence of a continuous, albeit evolving, agreement between the parties, thereby justifying the further extension as a continuation of this established procedural cooperation.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted by the Court in the 26 May 2023 order?
The Court granted the Consent Order, effectively resetting the procedural clock for the Consolidated Costs Assessment. The specific relief granted included:
1. Service of notices of commencement and bills of costs by 4:00 PM on 9 June 2023.
2. Service of points of dispute by 4:00 PM on 30 June 2023.
3. Service of replies to points of dispute by 4:00 PM on 18 August 2023.
4. Filing of a request for a hearing for the Consolidated Costs Assessment by 4:00 PM on 1 September 2023.
The Court also ordered that the costs of this specific Consent Order be "costs in the case," meaning they will be factored into the final assessment of the parties' overall legal expenses.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the management of complex costs assessments?
This case demonstrates that the DIFC Courts are highly amenable to party-led procedural timelines in the context of costs assessments, provided that the parties maintain clear communication with the Registry. Practitioners should anticipate that for complex, multi-stage litigation (such as those involving both CFI and Appeal proceedings), the Court will expect a "Consolidated Costs Assessment" approach. The reliance on successive consent orders suggests that practitioners should be proactive in seeking extensions via the Registry if they anticipate delays, rather than waiting for a default or a court-imposed deadline to lapse. This case serves as a blueprint for managing the transition from substantive judgment to the final recovery of costs through a structured, consensual timeline.
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 can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website:
https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0292018-industrial-group-ltd-v-abdelazim-el-shikh-el-fadil-hamid-8
The document is also available via the following CDN link:
https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-029-2018_20230526.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| The Industrial Group v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid | [2022] DIFC CFI 029 | Foundational order for costs assessment |
| The Industrial Group v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid | [2022] DIFC Court of Appeal | Foundational order for costs assessment |
| The Industrial Group v Abdelazim El Shikh El Fadil Hamid | [2023] DIFC CFI 029 | Foundational order for costs assessment |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) — General Case Management Powers
- DIFC Court Law — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance