This order clarifies the extent of the DIFC Court’s discretion to admit supplemental correspondence during the document production phase, reinforcing the court's commitment to the overriding objective over rigid procedural formalism.
What specific document production dispute between Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company and Emrgent Risk Solutions necessitated judicial intervention in CFI 053/2024?
The dispute centers on the exchange of document production requests and responses between the Claimant, Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC, and the Defendant, Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited. Following the parties' agreement to a Consent Order on 11 July 2025, the litigation moved into the document production phase. The Defendant submitted "Amended Requests to Produce," to which the Claimant provided an "Amended Response."
The conflict escalated when the Defendant submitted a letter to the Court on 20 August 2025, prompting the Claimant to formally request that the Court disregard this correspondence on the basis that the Defendant lacked procedural permission to respond further to the Claimant’s Amended Response. The Court was thus tasked with deciding whether to strictly enforce procedural silence or to exercise its inherent case management powers to consider the Defendant's supplemental letter. As the Court noted:
Pursuant to its case management powers and in furtherance of the overriding objective, the Court elects to take into account the Defendant’s Letter in determining the Defendant’s Amended Requests to Produce.
This intervention highlights the Court's preference for substantive resolution of discovery disputes rather than allowing procedural technicalities to obstruct the production of relevant and material evidence.
How did H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani exercise her case management powers in the Court of First Instance on 29 August 2025?
H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani, sitting in the Court of First Instance, presided over the matter and issued the order on 29 August 2025. Exercising the Court’s broad case management authority, Justice Jhangiani determined that the Defendant’s letter dated 20 August 2025 was admissible for the purpose of adjudicating the outstanding document production requests, despite the Claimant’s objection regarding the lack of explicit permission for such a filing.
What were the competing procedural arguments advanced by Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company and Emrgent Risk Solutions regarding the 20 August 2025 letter?
The Claimant, Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company, argued for a strict interpretation of the procedural rules, contending that the Defendant had no standing or permission to submit further correspondence following the Claimant’s Amended Response. The Claimant’s position was that the Court should disregard the Defendant’s letter entirely to maintain the integrity of the established exchange process.
Conversely, the Defendant, Emrgent Risk Solutions, maintained that its letter was a necessary response to the Claimant’s position and sought to have the Court consider the arguments contained therein. By reviewing the Defendant’s response to the Claimant’s objection, the Court effectively balanced the need for procedural order against the necessity of ensuring that all relevant information regarding document production was before the bench.
What is the doctrinal significance of the Court’s decision to consider supplemental correspondence in CFI 053/2024?
The doctrinal issue at the heart of this order is the tension between the strict adherence to the sequence of pleadings/responses and the Court’s "overriding objective" to deal with cases justly and efficiently. The Court had to determine whether the procedural rules governing document production are exhaustive or whether they permit the Court to receive additional submissions if such submissions assist in the determination of relevance and materiality. By choosing to admit the letter, the Court affirmed that its case management powers are not limited by the absence of an explicit rule permitting a specific piece of correspondence, provided that the admission of such evidence serves the interests of justice.
How did Justice Jhangiani apply the test of relevance and materiality when determining the Defendant’s Amended Requests to Produce?
In resolving the dispute, the Court reviewed the requests through the lens of relevance and materiality, which are the foundational requirements for document production under the RDC. The Court did not grant all requests automatically but instead scrutinized them, issuing specific determinations in a schedule attached to the order. The reasoning process was explicitly tied to the Court's duty to ensure that only documents meeting these criteria are produced. As stated in the order:
The Court’s determinations on the Defendant’s Amended Requests to Produce are set out in the attached schedule, in the final column headed “Court’s Determination”.
This indicates a granular, request-by-request analysis where the Court acted as an arbiter of the scope of discovery, ensuring that the production process remained proportionate and focused on the core issues of the insurance/reinsurance dispute.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural requirements were invoked to compel the Claimant to disclose its document retention policy?
The Court invoked RDC 28.40 to address concerns regarding the Claimant’s document management. This rule allows the Court to require a party to provide a statement regarding its document retention policy, which is a critical step when there is a dispute over the completeness of a party's search for documents. By ordering a sworn statement, the Court ensured that the Claimant’s representations regarding its document retention are subject to the rigors of a statement of truth. The order specifies:
Pursuant to RDC 28.40, the Claimant shall provide details of its document retention policy sworn in a statement supported by a statement of truth.
This requirement serves as a procedural safeguard, compelling the Claimant to formalize its internal practices and providing the Defendant with a level of assurance regarding the integrity of the production process.
How does the application of RDC 28.40 in this case reinforce the Court’s oversight of the discovery process?
RDC 28.40 is a powerful tool in the DIFC Court’s arsenal for ensuring compliance with discovery obligations. By requiring a sworn statement, the Court moves beyond mere reliance on the assertions of legal counsel and places the burden of verification directly on the party. This application demonstrates that the Court will not hesitate to use its procedural rules to compel transparency when the adequacy of a document search is challenged. It serves as a reminder to litigants that document production is not merely a clerical task but a formal obligation that, if mishandled, can lead to direct judicial intervention and the requirement for sworn, verifiable disclosures.
What is the final disposition of the Court regarding the document production requests and the associated costs?
The Court granted the Defendant’s request for judicial determination of the document production issues, effectively overruling the Claimant’s objection to the Defendant’s supplemental letter. The Court issued a schedule detailing the specific determinations for each request, confirming that production was ordered only where the documents were deemed relevant and material. While the order does not explicitly detail a separate costs award, the resolution of the document production dispute serves as a final determination on the scope of discovery for the current phase of the proceedings.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding supplemental filings and document retention disclosures?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court is increasingly willing to look beyond the strict sequence of filings if doing so aids the "overriding objective." Litigants should not assume that a procedural objection based on the lack of a specific rule will prevent the Court from considering relevant correspondence. Furthermore, the invocation of RDC 28.40 serves as a warning: if a party’s document production is perceived as inadequate or if there are doubts regarding the search process, the Court will readily require a sworn statement regarding document retention policies. Practitioners must ensure that their clients’ document retention policies are robust and defensible, as they may be required to attest to them under a statement of truth.
Where can I read the full judgment in Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC v Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited [2025] DIFC CFI 053?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0532024-qatar-general-insurance-reinsurance-company-qspc-v-emrgent-risk-solutions-limited
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-053-2024_20250829.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), Part 28
- RDC 28.40