What was the nature of the dispute in Larmag Holding v First Abu Dhabi Bank and why did the Claimant seek to re-re-amend its Particulars of Claim?
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute between Larmag Holding B.V. and a group of respondents, including First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC, FAB Securities LLC, and several individual and corporate defendants. The core of the matter centers on allegations of misconduct that prompted the Claimant to seek a significant expansion of its legal strategy. Specifically, the Claimant filed an application on 25 January 2021—merely seven weeks before the scheduled trial date of 7 March 2021—seeking permission to file and serve "Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim."
The primary driver for this late-stage application was the inclusion of a claim for multiple damages pursuant to Article 40(2) of the DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies. This addition sought to fundamentally alter the potential financial exposure of the Defendants. The court’s order confirmed the procedural path forward:
Permission is granted for the Claimant to rely on its Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim in the form filed in draft in support of the Application.
The dispute highlights the tension between the procedural finality required for trial preparation and the court's inherent power to allow amendments that ensure the substantive issues are fully ventilated. The full details of the order can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the Larmag Holding v First Abu Dhabi Bank application in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The application was heard and determined by Justice Sir Richard Field, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 10 February 2021, approximately one month before the trial was set to commence.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the Claimant's application to amend pleadings in CFI 054/2019?
The Claimant argued that the amendment was necessary to properly reflect the legal basis for its claim, specifically invoking the statutory right to multiple damages. Conversely, the Defendants opposed the application, likely citing the proximity to the trial date and the potential for unfair prejudice caused by the introduction of a new head of damage so late in the proceedings. The court considered these competing positions through email exchanges between the parties, ultimately favoring the Claimant’s request while implementing procedural safeguards to protect the Defendants' ability to respond.
What was the specific legal question Justice Sir Richard Field had to answer regarding the late-stage amendment of pleadings?
The court was tasked with determining whether the introduction of a claim for multiple damages under Article 40(2) of the DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies, filed seven weeks before trial, would cause "unfair prejudice" to the Defendants. The doctrinal issue was not whether the amendment was relevant, but whether the timing of the amendment would deprive the Defendants of a fair opportunity to prepare their defense, thereby violating the principles of procedural fairness and the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
How did Justice Sir Richard Field apply the test of unfair prejudice to the Claimant’s request for multiple damages?
Justice Sir Richard Field employed a pragmatic test, assessing whether the Defendants would be genuinely hindered in their trial preparation. He concluded that the nature of the amendment—a claim for multiple damages—did not require a complex factual overhaul of the defense. Instead, he reasoned that the Defendants could adequately respond through simple denials or non-admissions, with the substantive legal arguments reserved for closing submissions.
I have therefore given careful consideration to whether the Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced by having to formulate submissions in response to the proposed claim for multiple damages pursuant to Article 40 (2) of the DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies as they prepare for the trial and I have concluded that they would not be so prejudiced.
The judge further mitigated any potential prejudice by explicitly stating his intention to allow for post-trial closing submissions, ensuring the Defendants had sufficient time to address the new claim after the evidence had been fully presented.
Which specific DIFC statutes and procedural rules were applied in the Larmag Holding v First Abu Dhabi Bank order?
The primary substantive authority cited was Article 40(2) of the DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies, which provides the statutory basis for the multiple damages claim. Procedurally, the court exercised its discretion under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the trial timetable, specifically regarding the filing of pleadings and the submission of closing arguments.
How did Justice Sir Richard Field use the court's case management powers to address the introduction of the new claim?
The court utilized its case management powers to balance the Claimant's right to amend with the Defendants' right to a fair trial. By granting leave for the parties to file written closing submissions after the evidence was heard, the judge ensured that the Defendants were not forced to finalize their position on the multiple damages claim before the full factual matrix was established.
As the trial judge, given the nature of this case, I shall be granting leave to all the parties to file written closing submissions after the evidence has been heard and when setting the post trial timetable for such submissions due allowance will be granted to the Defendants in recognition of the introduction of this new aspect of the Claimant’s claim.
What was the final outcome and the specific relief granted in the order of 10 February 2021?
The court granted the Claimant permission to rely on the Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. The order included specific timelines for the subsequent procedural steps:
The Claimant shall file and serve its Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim within 3 days.
The Defendants shall file and serve any Re-Amended Defence with amendments limited to those responsive to the amendments in the Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim within 14 days thereafter.
The Claimant shall file and serve any Reply within 7 days of service of the Re-Amended Defence.
Additionally, the court permitted service on the Fourth and Fifth Defendants via email and ordered that the Claimant pay the Defendants' reasonable costs associated with the Re-Amended Defences, while the costs of the application itself were designated as costs in the case.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners appearing before the DIFC Court of First Instance?
This decision signals that the DIFC Court maintains a flexible approach to amendments, even when requested shortly before trial, provided the amendment does not fundamentally alter the factual burden on the opposing party. Practitioners should note that the court is willing to accommodate late-stage changes if they can be addressed through procedural adjustments, such as post-trial closing submissions, rather than requiring an adjournment of the trial. It reinforces the importance of focusing on whether the opposing party can realistically respond to the new pleading without suffering irreparable prejudice.
Where can I read the full judgment in Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2021] DIFC CFI 054?
The full text of the order is available on the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-054-2019-larmag-holding-bv-v-1-first-abu-dhabi-bank-pjsc-2-fab-securities-llc-3-mr-abdulla-saeed-bakheet-obaid-aljaberi-4-mr. The document can also be accessed via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-054-2019_20210210.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific precedents cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies, Article 40(2)