The DIFC Court of First Instance has formalised a procedural adjustment in the ongoing litigation between the Al Futtaim group and the Willis entities, ensuring the orderly progression of witness evidence filing through a court-sanctioned consent order.
What is the nature of the dispute in CFI 039/2023 between the Al Futtaim entities and the Willis group?
The litigation, registered under CFI 039/2023, involves a multi-party dispute between the Claimants—Abdulla Hamad Al Futtaim, Al Futtaim Willis Company LLC, and Al Futtaim Services Company LLC—and the Defendants, comprising Willis Limited, Willis Faber Limited, and Willis Group Limited, with Gras Savoye Insurance Brokers LLC joined as a Third Party. While the specific underlying commercial claims remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the matter has reached a critical stage of evidentiary preparation. The current procedural focus concerns the structured exchange of witness statements, a vital component of the DIFC Court’s fact-finding process.
The dispute represents a significant commercial conflict requiring the Court’s oversight to manage complex multi-jurisdictional corporate relationships. The parties have sought to maintain the integrity of the trial schedule by aligning their evidentiary submissions with the Court’s expectations. As noted in the formal record:
The parties agreeing, pursuant to paragraph 31 of the CMC Order, to extend the deadline by which they shall file and serve witness evidence to 4pm GST on 30 September 2024.
This consent order serves to bridge the gap between the original Case Management Order and the current requirements of the parties, ensuring that the evidentiary record is complete before the matter proceeds to substantive hearings.
Which judicial authority oversaw the issuance of the consent order in CFI 039/2023?
The consent order was issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance on 1 October 2024. The administrative action was formalised by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo, acting under the authority of the Court to give effect to the agreement reached between the parties. This order builds upon the foundational Case Management Order previously issued by H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 15 December 2023 and the subsequent Order with Reasons provided by Justice Andrew Moran on 1 August 2024, maintaining the continuity of judicial oversight throughout the pre-trial phase.
What were the specific procedural positions of the parties regarding the witness statement deadline?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a consensus to modify the existing procedural timeline to accommodate the complexities of preparing witness evidence. Rather than litigating a contested application for an extension, the Claimants and Defendants opted to utilise the mechanism provided in paragraph 31 of the Case Management Order (CMC Order) dated 15 December 2023. This provision allows for the variation of deadlines by mutual agreement, provided the Court is satisfied that such an adjustment does not prejudice the overall trial timetable.
By filing a joint request for a consent order, the parties demonstrated a collaborative approach to case management. Their position was that an extension to 4pm GST on 30 September 2024 was necessary to ensure that all witness statements were prepared with the requisite detail and accuracy. This approach avoids the need for judicial intervention in the form of a contested hearing, thereby preserving judicial resources while ensuring that the evidence presented to the Court is comprehensive and reflective of the parties' respective positions.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to address in granting this consent order?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the proposed extension of the witness statement deadline was consistent with the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s discretion to manage its own process under the RDC, specifically whether the parties' agreement to extend a deadline established by a prior judicial order (the CMC Order and the Order of Justice Moran) should be ratified.
The Court had to ensure that the extension did not undermine the procedural fairness or the efficiency of the trial process. By confirming the extension, the Court affirmed that the parties' autonomy in managing their evidentiary preparation is permissible so long as it remains within the framework of the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The issue was not one of substantive law, but of procedural compliance and the Court’s power to facilitate the orderly progression of complex litigation through consent-based variations.
How did the Court exercise its discretion in formalising the extension of the witness statement deadline?
The Court exercised its discretion by acknowledging the agreement between the parties and incorporating it into a formal order. The reasoning was predicated on the existing procedural framework established by the CMC Order, which explicitly contemplated the possibility of such variations. By referencing the previous orders of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser and Justice Andrew Moran, the Court ensured that the new deadline was integrated into the existing procedural history of the case.
The Court’s reasoning process was straightforward: it verified the parties' consent, confirmed the authority for such an extension under the CMC Order, and issued the order to provide legal certainty. As stated in the order:
The date in paragraph 2 of the Order and paragraph 10 of the CMC Order by which the Parties shall file and serve witness statement (s) shall be extended to 4pm GST on 30 September 2024.
This step-by-step validation ensures that the procedural timeline remains enforceable and that all parties are held to the new, mutually agreed-upon deadline.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts and prior orders were applied to this case?
The Court’s decision was grounded in the specific procedural history of CFI 039/2023. The primary authorities applied were:
- The Case Management Order (CMC Order) of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 15 December 2023, specifically paragraph 31, which provides the mechanism for parties to agree on variations to the procedural timetable.
- The Order with Reasons of Justice Andrew Moran dated 1 August 2024, which set the original parameters for the filing of witness evidence.
- The Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which empower the Court to manage cases proactively and to issue orders by consent to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes.
How did the Court utilise the prior orders of Justice Al Nasser and Justice Moran in this ruling?
The Court utilised the prior orders as the foundational benchmarks for the current procedural status of the case. The CMC Order of 15 December 2023 served as the primary source of authority for the parties' ability to negotiate the timeline. The Order of Justice Moran dated 1 August 2024 was used to identify the specific deadline that required modification. By explicitly referencing these documents, the Court ensured that the consent order did not exist in a vacuum but was instead a logical extension of the established procedural trajectory. This method of citation maintains the integrity of the case record and ensures that all parties are clear on which previous obligations have been superseded by the new agreement.
What was the final disposition and the order regarding costs in this matter?
The Court granted the application for the extension of the deadline for filing and serving witness statements. The order explicitly mandated that the new deadline for the parties to file and serve their witness statements was 4pm GST on 30 September 2024. Regarding the costs of the application, the Court ordered that the costs of the Consent Order shall be "costs in the case." This means that the party ultimately successful in the substantive litigation will likely be entitled to recover the costs associated with this specific procedural application, preventing the immediate depletion of resources on interlocutory matters.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners managing complex DIFC litigation?
This order serves as a reminder to practitioners that the DIFC Court encourages parties to manage their own procedural timelines through the mechanism of consent orders, provided they act within the framework established by the initial Case Management Order. For litigants in complex matters like CFI 039/2023, this underscores the importance of including flexible variation clauses in CMC orders. Practitioners should anticipate that the Court will readily facilitate agreed-upon extensions to avoid unnecessary litigation, provided the request is made in a timely manner and does not disrupt the trial date. This approach promotes efficiency and allows legal teams to focus their efforts on the substantive merits of the case rather than procedural disputes.
Where can I read the full judgment in Abdulla Hamad Al Futtaim v Willis [2024] DIFC CFI 039?
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-0392023-1-abdulla-hamad-al-futtaim-2-al-futtaim-willis-company-llc-3-al-futtaim-services-company-llc-v-1-willis-limited-2-wi-10
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-039-2023_20241001.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)
- Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser (15 December 2023)
- Order with Reasons of Justice Andrew Moran (1 August 2024)