Why did Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP file an application in CFI 054/2019 to cease acting for Mr Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi?
The litigation in CFI 054/2019 involves a multifaceted dispute initiated by Larmag Holding B.V. against a group of respondents, including First Abu Dhabi Bank, FAB Securities, and individual defendants including Mr Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi. As the proceedings progressed, the legal relationship between the Third Defendant and his appointed counsel, Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP, reached a point of termination. On 8 June 2021, the firm filed an Application Notice (CFI-054-2019/13) seeking a formal declaration from the Court to terminate their role as the legal representative for Mr Aljaberi.
The necessity for this judicial intervention stems from the procedural requirement that a party’s legal representative remains on the record until formally discharged by the Court. By filing the application supported by the Fourth Witness Statement of Lucas Emil Pitts, the firm sought to align the court record with the reality of their professional engagement. The Court granted the request, confirming the cessation of the firm's duties:
Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP has ceased to be the legal representative of the Third Defendant in the proceedings.
This order effectively severs the firm's procedural obligations to represent the Third Defendant in future hearings or filings, shifting the burden of communication and service directly to the individual defendant.
Which judge presided over the application for withdrawal of counsel in CFI 054/2019?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri, sitting in the Court of First Instance of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts. The order was issued on 17 June 2021, following a review of the supporting witness statement filed by the applicant firm on 7 June 2021. The Registrar, Nour Hineidi, subsequently issued the formal order at 10:00 am on the date of the decision.
What arguments did Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP advance to justify their withdrawal from representing Mr Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi?
While the specific underlying reasons for the breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship are protected by legal professional privilege and were not detailed in the public order, the firm relied upon the Fourth Witness Statement of Lucas Emil Pitts to satisfy the Court that the criteria for withdrawal had been met. Under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), a legal representative must demonstrate that there is a valid basis for ceasing to act, particularly when such withdrawal occurs in the midst of ongoing, complex litigation involving multiple parties like Larmag Holding B.V. and First Abu Dhabi Bank.
The firm’s position was that they could no longer effectively represent the Third Defendant's interests in the proceedings. By providing the necessary evidentiary support through Mr. Pitts, the firm ensured that the Court was satisfied that the withdrawal was not an attempt to frustrate the proceedings but a necessary administrative step. The Court accepted this position, thereby relieving the firm of its ongoing duties while simultaneously imposing a duty to ensure the Registry could still contact the Third Defendant.
What was the precise procedural question H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri had to resolve regarding the Third Defendant’s representation?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the requirements for a legal representative to cease acting under the RDC had been satisfied and, crucially, how to mitigate the risk of the Third Defendant becoming uncontactable. The legal question was not merely whether the firm could stop acting, but whether the Court could ensure that the Third Defendant remained subject to the Court’s jurisdiction and service requirements after the withdrawal.
By granting the order, the Court addressed the jurisdictional necessity of maintaining a clear line of communication with all parties. The Court had to balance the firm's right to terminate its professional engagement with the overriding need for procedural fairness and the efficient administration of justice in a case involving significant corporate entities and individual defendants.
How did H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri apply the procedural requirements for a change in legal representation?
Justice Al Mheiri’s reasoning focused on the transition of responsibility from the law firm to the individual defendant. The Court recognized that while the firm had a right to cease acting, it also bore a residual duty to ensure that the Registry was not left without a means of contacting the Third Defendant. This is a standard procedural safeguard in the DIFC Courts to prevent litigants from effectively "disappearing" from the court’s oversight.
The judge’s reasoning was twofold: first, to formally acknowledge the end of the agency relationship, and second, to mandate the disclosure of contact information to the Court. This ensures that all future notices, orders, and procedural documents can be served directly upon Mr Aljaberi. As specified in the order:
Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP shall provide to the Registry, by 3pm on Monday, 21 June 2021, contact details belonging to the Third Defendant.
This step ensures that the litigation can proceed without the Third Defendant claiming a lack of notice, thereby protecting the integrity of the ongoing case against the other defendants, including First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC and Elite Holding Group Limited.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the withdrawal of a legal representative?
The application was governed by the RDC provisions concerning the change of legal representative. While the order itself focuses on the outcome, such applications typically invoke RDC Part 23 (Applications) and the specific rules regarding a legal representative ceasing to act. These rules are designed to ensure that the Court is kept informed of the status of representation and that the transition does not cause undue delay or prejudice to the other parties, such as the Claimant, Larmag Holding B.V.
How do previous DIFC precedents regarding the withdrawal of counsel influence the Court's approach to service?
The DIFC Courts consistently emphasize that the withdrawal of counsel does not relieve a party of their obligations to the Court. Precedents in the DIFC have established that the Court will not permit a party to use the withdrawal of their legal representative as a tactic to delay proceedings or avoid service. By ordering the provision of contact details to the Registry, Justice Al Mheiri followed the established practice of ensuring that the Court maintains a "service address" for all defendants, regardless of their current legal representation status. This approach prevents the Third Defendant from claiming that subsequent court orders were not properly served.
What was the final disposition of the application filed by Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP?
The application was granted in its entirety. The Court issued a two-part order: first, confirming that Bird & Bird (MEA) LLP had ceased to be the legal representative of the Third Defendant, Mr Abdulla Saeed Bakheet Obaid Aljaberi, effective immediately. Second, the Court imposed a strict deadline of 3:00 pm on Monday, 21 June 2021, for the firm to provide the Registry with the Third Defendant's contact details. No costs were awarded against the applicant, and the order served to finalize the procedural change in the record for CFI 054/2019.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners when a client-counsel relationship breaks down?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that the duty to the Court persists even after the decision to cease acting has been made. Practitioners must be prepared to provide the Registry with the necessary contact information for their former clients to ensure that the litigation remains on track. For litigants, this case highlights the risk of losing legal representation during active proceedings; once counsel withdraws, the burden of monitoring the case and responding to court orders falls entirely on the party, who must then either appoint new counsel or represent themselves in a complex commercial dispute.
Where can I read the full judgment in Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank [2021] DIFC CFI 054?
The full order can be accessed via the 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-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in the procedural order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (Law No. 10 of 2004)