Following a Case Management Conference held on 18 November 2024, the DIFC Court of First Instance has established a rigorous procedural framework for the resolution of the long-standing dispute between Kian Saadt Yazdi and United Arab Bank, setting the stage for a four-day trial in October 2025.
What is the nature of the dispute in Kian Saadt Yazdi v United Arab Bank and why is expert evidence regarding forgery central to the proceedings?
The litigation involves a civil claim brought by Kian Saadt Yazdi against United Arab Bank PJSC. While the specific underlying financial transactions remain subject to ongoing pleadings, the core of the dispute centers on allegations of forgery, which necessitates specialized forensic scrutiny. The court has recognized the complexity of these allegations by granting both parties permission to appoint handwriting experts to examine the disputed documents.
The procedural focus of the recent order is to ensure that these allegations are ventilated through a structured exchange of evidence. The court has mandated that the parties move beyond initial pleadings to a stage where expert findings can be tested. As noted in the court's directions regarding the progression of the case:
A Case Memorandum, List of issues and Case Management Information Sheet shall be lodged with the Court no later than 4pm (GST) on 28 November 2024.
This requirement underscores the court's intent to narrow the issues of fact, particularly those pertaining to the alleged forgery, before the parties reach the trial stage. The case, which has been active since 2017, is now moving toward a definitive resolution under the supervision of the Court of First Instance.
Which judge presided over the Case Management Conference for CFI 031/2017 and in which division of the DIFC Courts was the order issued?
The Case Management Conference was presided over by Justice Rene Le Miere. The order was issued within the Court of First Instance, the primary forum for civil and commercial disputes within the DIFC jurisdiction. The conference took place on 18 November 2024, with the formal order being issued by the Court on 21 November 2024.
What were the positions of Kian Saadt Yazdi and United Arab Bank regarding the procedural timetable and the necessity of expert evidence?
The parties reached a consensus on the procedural directions, which were subsequently formalized by Justice Le Miere. Kian Saadt Yazdi and United Arab Bank PJSC agreed to a comprehensive schedule covering document production, witness statements, and expert reports. The claimant and the defendant both acknowledged the necessity of expert handwriting analysis to address the forgery allegations, leading the court to grant permission for each side to rely on one expert witness within that specific field.
The parties’ agreement to these directions reflects a mutual commitment to move the case toward trial without further procedural delays. By aligning on the timeline for document production and the exchange of expert reports, the parties have effectively established a roadmap that balances the need for thorough evidence gathering with the court’s objective of efficient case management.
What is the primary doctrinal issue the court must resolve regarding the document production process under RDC Part 28?
The central legal question facing the court is the management of document production in a case where forgery is alleged. The court must ensure that the disclosure process is robust enough to uncover evidence relevant to the authenticity of the documents in question while remaining within the bounds of RDC Part 28. The court has established a clear mechanism for parties to request production and, crucially, to challenge objections to those requests.
The court’s approach allows for a tiered process: initial standard production, followed by specific requests, and finally, judicial intervention if parties remain dissatisfied. As specified in the order:
The parties shall comply with the terms of any Disclosure Order and file a Document production Statement within 7 days from the date of the Document Production Order.
This ensures that the court retains oversight over the disclosure process, preventing the litigation from stalling due to disputes over the scope of production.
How did Justice Rene Le Miere apply the RDC Part 35 framework to structure the trial preparation and the final hearing?
Justice Le Miere utilized the RDC Part 35 framework to impose a strict sequence of events leading up to the trial. This includes the preparation of trial bundles, the exchange of skeleton arguments, and the creation of an agreed chronology. These requirements are designed to assist the court in managing the trial efficiently, particularly given the technical nature of the forgery evidence.
The court emphasized the importance of pre-trial cooperation between the parties to streamline the proceedings. The order mandates that the claimant take the lead on administrative tasks, such as preparing the trial bundles and the reading list. Regarding the final preparations, 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 Claimant no later than four clear days before trial.
By requiring an agreed chronology, the court forces the parties to identify the specific points of factual disagreement, which will significantly reduce the time spent on uncontested matters during the four-day trial.
Which specific RDC rules were cited by the court to govern the procedural progression of CFI 031/2017?
The court relied on several parts of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to structure the progression of this case. Specifically, the order invokes:
- RDC Part 26 (Case Management) for the conduct of the conference and the pre-trial review.
- RDC Part 28 (Production of Documents) for the disclosure process.
- RDC Part 23 (Applications) for the mechanism to apply for further Document Production Orders.
- RDC Part 29 (Witness Statements) for the service of factual evidence.
- RDC Part 31 (Expert Reports) for the appointment and reporting of handwriting experts.
- RDC Part 35 (Trial) for the final trial preparations, including bundles, skeletons, and the hearing itself.
How do the cited RDC rules facilitate the court's management of expert evidence and trial bundles?
The court utilized RDC Part 31 to grant specific permission for handwriting experts, ensuring that the evidence is limited to the relevant expertise required to address the forgery claims. This prevents the proliferation of unnecessary expert testimony. Furthermore, the court applied RDC Part 35 to mandate the creation of an agreed trial bundle index.
The court’s reliance on these rules ensures that the trial is not bogged down by procedural disputes. As stated in the order regarding trial bundles:
Agreed trial bundles (prepared by the claimant) shall be filed and served no later than two weeks before trial.
This, combined with the requirement to liaise on the index, ensures that the court and the parties are working from a unified set of documents, which is essential for a complex forgery case.
What is the final disposition of the Case Management Conference and what are the specific orders regarding the trial date and costs?
The court issued a comprehensive Case Management Order directing the parties through a series of deadlines culminating in a trial. The trial is scheduled to commence on 20 October 2025 with an estimated duration of four days. Regarding the costs of the conference, the court ordered that they shall be "costs in the case," meaning the ultimate liability for these costs will be determined at the conclusion of the trial.
The court also provided a safety valve for the parties to seek further document production if necessary, noting:
Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the parties from making further applications for Document Production Orders after this date.
This ensures that the procedural timetable is firm but not so rigid that it precludes the discovery of critical evidence that may emerge during the pre-trial phase.
What are the practical implications of this order for practitioners involved in DIFC litigation involving forgery allegations?
This case serves as a template for how the DIFC Courts manage complex civil litigation involving allegations of forgery. Practitioners should note the court's emphasis on early identification of issues and the use of expert evidence. The requirement for an agreed chronology and a reading list four days before trial is a clear signal that the court expects counsel to be fully prepared to narrow the scope of the trial to the essential disputed facts.
Furthermore, the court’s willingness to allow for "further applications" for document production, even after setting a deadline, suggests that while the court values procedural efficiency, it will not sacrifice the integrity of the evidence-gathering process. Practitioners must ensure that their clients are prepared to meet the strict deadlines for witness statements and expert reports, as these are now binding components of the court's trial preparation schedule.
Where can I read the full judgment in Kian Saadt Yazdi v United Arab Bank [2024] DIFC CFI 031?
The full text of the Case Management Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0312017-kian-saadt-yazdi-v-united-arab-bank-pjsc. 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-031-2017_20241121.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Part 23, Part 26, Part 28, Part 29, Part 31, Part 35.