This consent order formalizes a procedural extension regarding the exchange of witness evidence between the Claimant and the Third Defendant in the ongoing litigation involving complex banking and corporate disputes.
What is the nature of the dispute between Larmag Holding B.V. and the First Abu Dhabi Bank group in CFI 054/2019?
The litigation, registered under case number CFI 054/2019, involves Larmag Holding B.V. as the Claimant against a multi-party respondent group including First Abu Dhabi Bank, FAB Securities, and individual defendants including Mr. Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim involve complex allegations regarding banking operations and corporate liability, the specific matter addressed in this order concerns the management of the evidentiary phase of the trial.
The parties reached a mutual agreement to adjust the timeline for the exchange of witness statements in reply, a critical procedural step in the DIFC Court’s case management process. This adjustment ensures that both the Claimant and the Third Defendant, Mr. Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi, have sufficient time to finalize their respective factual evidence before the trial proceeds. The court formalized this agreement to maintain the integrity of the litigation schedule. As stated in the order:
Signed statements of witnesses of fact in reply shall be exchanged between the Claimant and Third Defendant by no later than 4pm on Sunday 30 August 2020.
The dispute remains active, and the court continues to oversee the procedural compliance of all parties involved to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the underlying claims. Further details regarding the case progression can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 054/2019 on 27 August 2020?
The consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was processed on 27 August 2020, following the agreement reached between the Claimant and the Third Defendant. This administrative action falls under the purview of the Registrar’s office, which is responsible for managing the procedural timelines and case management orders in the Court of First Instance.
What were the positions of Larmag Holding B.V. and the Third Defendant regarding the extension of the witness statement deadline?
The Claimant and the Third Defendant, Mr. Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi, adopted a cooperative stance regarding the procedural timeline. Recognizing the complexity of the evidence required for the witness statements in reply, both parties sought to amend the existing deadline established by the Case Management Conference Order of Justice Sir Richard Field, dated 18 May 2020.
The parties initially agreed on 4 August 2020 to extend the deadline from 20 August 2020 to 25 August 2020. Subsequently, they reached a further agreement to move the deadline to 30 August 2020. By presenting this joint request to the Deputy Registrar, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, demonstrating a mutual commitment to ensuring that all factual evidence is properly prepared and exchanged in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
What procedural question did the court have to resolve regarding the Case Management Conference Order of 18 May 2020?
The court was required to determine whether it should grant a variation to the pre-existing Case Management Conference (CMC) order. Specifically, the court had to decide if the agreed-upon extension of the deadline for the exchange of "statements of witnesses of fact in reply" was consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC, which emphasizes the efficient and cost-effective management of cases.
The legal question centered on whether the court should exercise its discretion to modify the procedural timetable established by Justice Sir Richard Field. Because the parties were in consensus, the court focused on ensuring that the new date of 30 August 2020 did not prejudice the overall trial schedule or the rights of the other defendants not party to this specific agreement.
How did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the principle of party autonomy in granting the consent order?
The Deputy Registrar exercised the court's inherent power to manage the case by giving effect to the agreement reached between the litigants. By acknowledging the prior CMC order of Justice Sir Richard Field, the court maintained continuity while allowing the parties the flexibility to manage their evidentiary preparation.
The reasoning was straightforward: where parties to a complex commercial dispute reach a consensus on procedural timing, the court will generally facilitate that agreement provided it does not disrupt the court’s administration of justice. The court’s role here was to formalize the agreement into an enforceable order, ensuring that the deadline for the exchange of witness statements was clearly defined for all parties.
Which specific RDC rules and prior orders were referenced in the consent order for CFI 054/2019?
The order specifically references paragraph 17 of the Case Management Conference Order issued by Justice Sir Richard Field on 18 May 2020. This reference serves as the anchor for the procedural modification, demonstrating that the court is strictly adhering to the framework established during the initial case management phase. While the order does not cite specific RDC rule numbers, it operates under the general authority of the Registrar to issue consent orders as permitted by the Rules of the DIFC Courts, which govern the conduct of proceedings in the Court of First Instance.
How does the court’s reliance on the CMC order of 18 May 2020 ensure procedural consistency in this case?
The court’s reliance on the CMC order of 18 May 2020 ensures that the litigation remains disciplined despite the agreed-upon extensions. By explicitly linking the new deadline to the original CMC order, the court ensures that the parties remain bound by the overarching trial strategy set by Justice Sir Richard Field. This approach prevents "procedural drift," where delays in one area of evidence exchange might otherwise lead to a breakdown in the entire trial schedule. The court uses these references to maintain a clear audit trail of all modifications to the original trial plan.
What was the final disposition of the request for an extension in CFI 054/2019?
The court granted the request for an extension by consent. The order stipulated that the exchange of signed statements of witnesses of fact in reply must be completed by 4:00 PM on 30 August 2020. Regarding the costs of this application, the court ordered that they be "costs in the case," meaning that the party ultimately successful in the litigation will likely be entitled to recover the costs associated with this procedural application.
What are the implications of this consent order for practitioners managing complex multi-party litigation in the DIFC?
This order highlights the importance of proactive communication between parties when procedural deadlines become unfeasible. For practitioners, the case demonstrates that the DIFC Courts are willing to accommodate reasonable requests for extensions, provided they are supported by a clear agreement between the parties and do not undermine the court's case management objectives.
Practitioners should note that even when an agreement is reached, it must be formalized through a consent order to be binding and to avoid potential sanctions for non-compliance with the original CMC order. The use of "costs in the case" as the default position for such procedural applications serves as a reminder that while the court facilitates cooperation, the financial burden of procedural delays remains a factor that parties must consider when requesting extensions.
Where can I read the full judgment in Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2020] DIFC CFI 054?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at the following link: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-054-2019-larmag-holding-b-v-v-1-first-abu-dhabi-bank-pjsc-2-fab-securities-llc-3-mr-abdulla-saeed-bakheet-obaid-aljaberi-4-m-3. The document is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-054-2019_20200827.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank | CFI 054/2019 | Subject of the order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Case Management Conference Order of 18 May 2020 (Justice Sir Richard Field)