What is the nature of the dispute between Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan and Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari in CFI 058/2024?
The litigation involves a Part 7 Claim initiated by the Claimant, Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan, against the Defendant, Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in the April 2026 order, the procedural history reveals a contentious path toward trial, following an earlier order on 29 October 2025 that struck out parts of the Claimant’s original filing. The parties are currently acting in person, and the dispute has reached a stage where both sides are seeking to introduce expert testimony in disparate fields—specifically financial expertise for the Claimant and engineering/construction expertise for the Defendant.
The Court has expressed significant reservations regarding the necessity and relevance of this proposed evidence. The judge noted the economic inefficiency of the current trajectory, given the relationship between the quantum of the claim and the mounting legal costs. As noted in the Court's reasoning:
As the Court made clear, it is unfortunate given the sums involved and the likely costs of proceeding to trial.
The matter remains active, with the Court attempting to balance the rights of self-represented litigants to present their case against the strict requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Further details regarding the case history can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the Adjourned Case Management Conference in CFI 058/2024?
The Adjourned Case Management Conference was presided over by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, issued on 8 April 2026, followed a hearing held on 6 April 2026, which was necessitated by the parties' inability to reach an agreement on the appointment of a mediator and their subsequent request to introduce expert evidence.
What were the respective positions of Atul Dhawan and Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari regarding the introduction of expert evidence?
Both parties, acting in person, expressed a desire to introduce expert testimony to support their respective positions at trial. The Claimant, Atul Dhawan, indicated an intention to call a financial expert to testify on matters relevant to his claim. Conversely, the Defendant, Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari, sought to introduce evidence from an expert with specific expertise in engineering and construction.
Neither party had formally instructed an expert at the time of the Adjourned CMC, nor were they able to provide precise details regarding the nature or scope of the evidence they intended to adduce. Despite the Court’s skepticism regarding the admissibility of such evidence, the parties maintained a firm stance on proceeding to trial. As the Court observed:
Given the parties’ apparent mutual desire to have this matter determined by the Court, it will be set down for trial.
What is the doctrinal issue regarding the admissibility of expert evidence for litigants in person in the DIFC?
The primary legal question before the Court concerns the threshold for permitting expert evidence under RDC Part 31 when the parties are unrepresented. The Court must determine whether the proposed evidence is not only relevant to the pleaded issues but also whether it is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. Because the parties are acting in person, the Court faces the challenge of ensuring that the procedural requirements of the RDC are met without unfairly prejudicing the litigants' ability to present their case, while simultaneously preventing the introduction of unnecessary or inadmissible evidence that would inflate costs and delay the proceedings.
How did Justice Roger Stewart KC apply the test for expert evidence admissibility in this matter?
Justice Stewart adopted a cautious approach, allowing the parties to produce reports while explicitly reserving the right to exclude them at a later stage. By ordering the parties to identify the field of expertise and the relevance of the reports to the pleaded issues, the Court created a filter mechanism. This allows the Court to scrutinize the reports during the upcoming Pre-Trial Review to ensure they comply with the strict standards of RDC Part 31.
The Court’s reasoning reflects a pragmatic balance: it acknowledges the parties' right to be heard while maintaining a firm grip on the trial’s scope. The judge expressed clear skepticism regarding the utility of the evidence, particularly that proposed by the Claimant. As stated in the order:
The Court has real doubts as to the admissibility of any such evidence, particularly that suggested by the Claimant.
By setting a Pre-Trial Review, the Court ensures that the admissibility question is addressed before the trial commences, thereby protecting the integrity of the court process.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural requirements must the parties satisfy for their expert reports?
The Court mandated that any expert evidence must strictly comply with RDC Part 31. This requires that the reports be provided to the other party and the Court by 4 May 2026. Furthermore, the parties are required to identify the specific field of expertise and explain the relevance of the evidence to the issues already pleaded in the case.
The order also established a timeline for reply evidence, ensuring procedural fairness. As outlined in the directions:
Upon receipt of the relevant report by one party, the opposing party may serve an expert report from an expert in the same discipline replying to the initial report by no later than 4pm on 1 June 2026.
This structured approach ensures that both parties have an equal opportunity to respond to the expert evidence introduced by their opponent.
How did the Court address the parties' failure to engage in mediation?
Despite the parties' mutual desire to proceed to trial, the Court maintained its position that the dispute is suitable for alternative dispute resolution. The Court explicitly suggested that the parties utilize the DIFC Mediation Services to resolve the matter before the trial date. The Court’s stance is summarized as follows:
The Court still considers this matter suitable for mediation and suggests that the parties may wish to seek the assistance of the DIFC Mediation Services
. This reflects the Court's ongoing commitment to encouraging settlement in civil disputes, even when litigants are determined to pursue a full trial.
What is the final disposition and trial schedule ordered by the Court in CFI 058/2024?
The Court ordered that the matter proceed to a trial, scheduled for a two-day remote hearing. The Pre-Trial Review is set for the week commencing 24 June 2026, where the Court will evaluate the admissibility of the expert evidence and provide final directions for the trial. The trial itself is fixed as follows:
A trial will be fixed for a remote hearing with a 2 day estimate from 8 September 2026 onwards.
Costs for the current application were ordered to be "in the case," meaning the ultimate liability for these costs will be determined at the conclusion of the trial.
What are the implications of this order for future litigants in person in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder that while the DIFC Courts are accessible to litigants in person, they will not relax the procedural rigors of the RDC, particularly regarding expert evidence. Litigants must be prepared to justify the relevance and admissibility of their evidence at a Pre-Trial Review. Furthermore, the Court’s persistent encouragement of mediation, despite the parties' resistance, signals that the judiciary will continue to prioritize cost-effective resolution over full-scale litigation, even when parties are adamant about having their day in court. Future litigants should anticipate that the Court will actively manage the scope of evidence to prevent unnecessary expenditure.
Where can I read the full judgment in CFI 058/2024 Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0582024-atul-dhawan-ashok-amir-chand-davhan-v-ramzi-wahib-el-jaouhari-4. The document is also available on the CDN: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-058-2024_20260408.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law was cited in the Order with Reasons. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 31 (Expert Evidence)