What is the nature of the dispute between The CTB Finance and Dubai Insurance Co in CFI 047/2022?
The litigation between The CTB Finance Ltd and Dubai Insurance Co PSC concerns a complex trade credit insurance dispute currently being adjudicated within the DIFC Court of First Instance. The proceedings have involved extensive procedural management, as evidenced by a series of prior orders including the THE CTB FINANCE v DUBAI INSURANCE CO [2022] DIFC CFI 047 — Procedural variation via consent order (22 February 2022), the THE CTB FINANCE v DUBAI INSURANCE CO [2022] DIFC CFI 047 — Procedural extension of time for pleadings (16 August 2022), and the THE CTB FINANCE v DUBAI INSURANCE CO [2022] DIFC CFI 047 — Procedural framework for trade credit insurance litigation (25 November 2022). The current dispute centers on the technical evaluation of insurance obligations, necessitating the appointment of experts to clarify the underlying financial and contractual issues.
The August 2023 order specifically addresses the mechanics of how these experts are to interact and synthesize their findings. Given the technical nature of the insurance claims, the court has prioritized the creation of a "Joint Memorandum" to narrow the scope of expert disagreement before trial. This follows earlier disclosure disputes, such as those addressed in the THE CTB FINANCE v DUBAI INSURANCE CO [2023] DIFC CFI 047 — Disclosure order regarding Redfern Schedule production (22 February 2023) and the THE CTB FINANCE v DUBAI INSURANCE CO [2023] DIFC CFI 047 — Amended disclosure order regarding Redfern Schedule production (24 February 2023).
Which judge presided over the August 2023 consent order in CFI 047/2022?
The order was issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The document was formally issued on 28 August 2023 at 3:00 PM, following the parties' mutual agreement to amend the existing procedural schedule regarding expert evidence.
What were the respective positions of The CTB Finance and Dubai Insurance Co regarding the expert evidence schedule?
The parties, having reached a consensus, sought to amend the previously established deadlines for expert collaboration to ensure a more efficient trial preparation process. The Claimant, The CTB Finance Ltd, and the Defendant, Dubai Insurance Co PSC, jointly proposed a structured timeline for the exchange of draft issues and the subsequent finalization of the Agreed List of Issues. By submitting a consent order, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, demonstrating a cooperative approach to the procedural management of their expert evidence. Their primary objective was to ensure that the experts had sufficient time to meet and produce a joint memorandum that complies with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
What was the specific procedural question the court had to resolve regarding the expert joint memorandum?
The court was required to formalize a timeline for the "Agreed List of Issues" and the subsequent expert meeting process. The doctrinal issue concerned the application of RDC provisions governing expert evidence to ensure that the experts' joint memorandum would be both admissible and useful to the court. Specifically, the court had to determine the deadline by which the parties must finalize the list of issues that the experts are tasked to address, thereby preventing procedural delays in the lead-up to the final hearing.
How did the court apply the RDC framework to the expert meeting requirements?
Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo utilized the authority granted under the RDC to formalize the expert collaboration process. The court mandated that the experts meet to discuss their evidence and subsequently produce a joint memorandum that records their areas of agreement and disagreement. The reasoning focused on ensuring compliance with RDC 31.63 and RDC 31.58.
The parties’ experts shall pursuant to RDC 31.58 meet by telephone conference, video conference, or in person, to discuss their evidence by no later than 4pm on 1 September 2023.
Furthermore, the court established the specific requirements for the joint memorandum:
The parties’ experts shall, pursuant to RDC 31.63 following their meeting and by 13 September 2023, draw up and sign a joint memorandum recording each of the matters set out at RDC 31.63, sub-paragraphs (1) – (4)."
Which specific RDC rules were applied to the expert evidence process in this case?
The court relied on several key provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to structure the expert evidence phase:
- RDC 31.58: Governs the requirement for experts to meet and discuss their evidence to narrow the issues.
- RDC 31.63: Specifies the requirements for the joint memorandum, including the need for experts to record areas of agreement and disagreement.
- RDC 31.60: Provides the mechanism for experts to address issues in the joint memorandum even when the parties have not reached a full agreement on the list of issues.
How did the court define the process for establishing the Agreed List of Issues?
The court established a clear, multi-step process for the parties to finalize the list of issues for the experts, as outlined in the following provision:
The parties shall agree on an Agreed List of Issues for the Joint Memorandum referred to in paragraph 13 of the Order.
The court set a strict deadline for this process:
The Agreed List of Issues for the Joint Memorandum must be agreed by no later than 4pm on 30 August 2023.
This timeline ensures that the experts are not left without clear guidance when they meet on 1 September 2023.
What was the final disposition and the order regarding costs in CFI 047/2022?
The court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The order mandated that the experts meet by 1 September 2023 and sign a joint memorandum by 13 September 2023. Additionally, the court set a strict timeline for the exchange of draft issues, culminating in a final deadline for the Agreed List of Issues on 30 August 2023. Regarding costs, the court specified that there shall be no order as to costs, reflecting the consensual nature of the application.
What are the practical implications for practitioners managing expert evidence in DIFC litigation?
This case highlights the importance of proactive procedural management in complex commercial litigation. By utilizing consent orders to refine expert evidence timelines, parties can avoid the costs and delays associated with contested procedural applications. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court expects strict adherence to RDC 31.58 and 31.63, and that the court is willing to facilitate the expert process by setting granular deadlines for the creation of an "Agreed List of Issues." This approach serves to focus the experts' efforts, thereby reducing the time spent on irrelevant points and streamlining the eventual trial process.
Where can I read the full judgment in The CTB Finance v Dubai Insurance Co [2023] DIFC CFI 047?
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-0472022-ctb-finance-ltd-v-dubai-insurance-co-psc-12 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-047-2022_20230828.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) 31.58
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 31.60
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 31.63