What is the nature of the dispute between Kian Saadt Yazdi and United Arab Bank regarding the AED 100 million credit facility?
The litigation centers on a high-stakes banking dispute involving a personal guarantee allegedly signed by Kian Saadt Yazdi in favor of United Arab Bank (UAB) to secure credit facilities for Pacific Control Systems LLC (PCS). The Claimant, a 35% shareholder in PCS, asserts that he never executed the document and that the signature is a forgery. The bank, conversely, seeks to enforce the guarantee, which covers amounts exceeding AED 100 million.
The core of the procedural conflict lies in the Claimant’s attempt to obtain clarity on the circumstances surrounding the document's creation. As noted in the court records:
The Claimant filed a Part 8 Claim Form seeking a declaratory judgment that the Personal Guarantee is void due to forgery.
The Claimant contends that he was entirely unaware of the banking facilities provided by UAB and that managerial powers within PCS had been delegated to the CEO, leaving him vulnerable to the alleged fraudulent instrument. The resolution of this forgery claim is the primary objective of the ongoing proceedings.
Which judge presided over the application for further information in the Court of First Instance on 21 April 2025?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere in the DIFC Court of First Instance. This order follows a series of procedural developments in the case, including the discharge of a previous stay and the transition of the claim from the Part 8 procedure to the Part 7 procedure, as directed by Justice Le Miere in his earlier order dated 31 October 2024.
What were the opposing arguments regarding the Claimant’s Request for Further Information (RFI) under RDC Part 19?
The Claimant argued that obtaining specific details regarding the execution and verification of the Personal Guarantee was essential to prepare his case for trial. He maintained that without these particulars, he could not effectively challenge the bank's assertion that the document was validly signed in the presence of a bank employee, Mr. Zeshan Mahmood.
UAB opposed the request, arguing that the information sought was unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings. The bank contended that the Claimant should wait for the standard disclosure and witness evidence phases to obtain such details. However, the Claimant successfully argued that he required this information in advance to properly frame his evidence. As the court noted:
By Application No. CFI-031-2017/7 issued on 14 March 2025 (the “Application”), the Claimant has applied for an order pursuant to RDC Part 19 that UAB, within 14 days, provide responses to the Claimant's Request for Further Information dated 27 November 2024 (“RFI”).
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the scope of RDC Part 19?
The Court was required to determine whether the Claimant’s request for further information was "reasonably necessary and proportionate" to enable him to prepare his case, or whether the bank was correct in asserting that such information should be deferred until the disclosure and witness statement stages. The doctrinal issue turned on the threshold for ordering further information under RDC Part 19 when the underlying claim involves allegations of forgery and the defendant possesses exclusive knowledge of the execution process.
How did Justice Rene Le Miere apply the test of necessity and proportionality to the RFI?
Justice Le Miere emphasized that the court has the discretion to order the provision of information if it is required for the fair and efficient conduct of the litigation. He rejected the bank's argument that the information should wait for disclosure, finding that the Claimant's ability to prepare his case was currently hindered by the lack of clarity regarding the execution process.
The reasoning centered on the principle that a party is entitled to understand the case they must meet before the trial phase begins. As the court reasoned:
The Claimant is entitled to know the circumstances of the alleged execution/verification in advance to prepare his evidence and for the disclosure phase.
By granting the application in part, the judge affirmed that the court will intervene to compel the disclosure of specific facts when those facts are foundational to the claimant's ability to challenge the authenticity of a document.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory provisions were applied in the determination of the application?
The Court primarily relied on RDC Part 19, which governs the provision of further information. Specifically, the application was brought under the framework of RDC 19.1 and 19.6, which allow the court to order a party to provide information if it is necessary to clarify a statement of case. The court also considered the procedural history of the case, including the transition from Part 8 to Part 7, and the previous Inspection Order issued by H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi on 14 January 2018, which had originally sought to facilitate the verification of the signature.
How did the Court utilize English case law to interpret the requirements for further information?
The Court referenced Fairclough v Tosi Limited, 99 Hippos Limited [2022] EWHC 2714 (Ch) to support the proposition that the court may order a party to provide further information if it is reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the requesting party to prepare their case, even if the information might be disclosed later. This authority was used to reinforce the court's power to manage the litigation proactively, ensuring that the parties are not left in the dark regarding the factual basis of their opponent's case, particularly in matters involving allegations of fraud or forgery.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted to the Claimant?
The Court granted the application in part, ordering UAB to provide responses to specific requests within 14 days. The order specifically targeted the execution and verification details that the bank had previously withheld.
The Defendant shall, within 14 days, provide responses to Requests 1,2,4,6 and 7 of the First Request and Request 2 of the Second Request of the Claimant's Request for Further Information dated 27 November 2024.
Additionally, the Court ordered that the costs of the application be the Claimant's costs in the case, signaling that the bank's resistance to the RFI was considered unreasonable in light of the necessity of the information for the Claimant's case.
How does this ruling change the practice for litigants seeking information in forgery-related banking disputes?
This decision serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will not allow parties to use the disclosure phase as a shield to withhold essential factual particulars. Practitioners should note that where a document's authenticity is challenged, the court is likely to favor early disclosure of the circumstances of execution. Litigants must be prepared to provide specific factual responses to RFIs when those facts are within their exclusive knowledge, rather than relying on the hope that such details will be revealed later in the litigation process.
Where can I read the full judgment in Kian Saadt Yazdi v United Arab Bank [2025] DIFC CFI 031?
The full judgment 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-1. The text is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-031-2017_20250421.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Fairclough v Tosi Limited | [2022] EWHC 2714 (Ch) | To support the court's power to order RFI when necessary and proportionate. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 19 (Requests for Further Information)
- RDC 19.1
- RDC 19.6
- RDC 23 (General Case Management)