This consent order formalizes the procedural recalibration of the dispute between Orient Insurance and Hazel Middle East, establishing a revised timeline for disclosure, expert evidence, and trial preparation within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
What is the nature of the dispute between Orient Insurance and Hazel Middle East in CFI 060/2019?
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between Orient Insurance PJSC, acting as the Claimant, and Hazel Middle East FZE, the Defendant. While the specific underlying cause of action remains private, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), with the parties currently engaged in rigorous pre-trial procedural steps to narrow the issues for trial. The litigation reached a critical juncture in mid-2020, necessitating a formal adjustment to the case management schedule originally established on 11 May 2020.
The stakes involve the resolution of complex commercial obligations, as evidenced by the court’s requirement for expert evidence regarding UAE Law and the extensive document production process. The parties have sought to streamline the litigation by filing an Agreed List of Issues, which serves as the framework for all subsequent witness statements and skeleton arguments. As noted in the court's schedule:
The parties shall prepare an agreed Chronology of significant events cross-referenced to significant documents, pleadings and witness statements which shall be filed with the Court by the Claimant by no later than 4pm on 3 March 2021.
The case is currently listed for a trial duration of four to six days, reflecting the substantial volume of evidence and the technical nature of the legal arguments anticipated by the parties.
Which judge and division presided over the issuance of the 22 July 2020 consent order in CFI 060/2019?
The consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi, acting within the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the DIFC Courts. The order was formally issued on 22 July 2020 at 10:00 am, following the parties' mutual agreement to amend the previous Case Management Conference (CMC) directions.
What were the positions of Orient Insurance and Hazel Middle East regarding the amendment of the CMC Order?
Orient Insurance and Hazel Middle East adopted a collaborative stance by opting for a consent order to modify their procedural timeline. Rather than litigating a contested application for an extension of time, the parties presented a unified front to the Court, effectively signaling that the original CMC Order dated 11 May 2020 required adjustment to ensure the efficient progression of the case.
By seeking this amendment, the parties demonstrated a shared commitment to the RDC’s overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at a proportionate cost. The Claimant and Defendant agreed to a comprehensive schedule that governs the production of documents, the exchange of witness statements, and the submission of expert reports on UAE Law. This cooperative approach allowed the parties to avoid the costs and delays associated with formal court hearings for procedural disputes, with the Court ultimately ordering that "No order as to costs" be made regarding the application itself.
What was the precise procedural question the DIFC Court had to resolve in the 22 July 2020 order?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the proposed amendments to the case management directions were consistent with the RDC and whether they would facilitate the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s power to manage the litigation process under RDC Part 26, ensuring that the parties remained on track for the trial date while accommodating the practical realities of document disclosure and expert witness preparation.
The Court had to ensure that the new deadlines—specifically those regarding the production of documents and the filing of expert evidence on UAE Law—did not prejudice the integrity of the trial process. By approving the schedule, the Court effectively validated the parties' agreed-upon timeline as the new procedural baseline for the litigation.
How did the Court apply the RDC framework to structure the disclosure and evidence phases in CFI 060/2019?
The Court utilized a structured approach to disclosure and evidence, ensuring that each phase of the litigation was tethered to a specific RDC rule. The reasoning focused on the necessity of a clear, sequential flow: first, the production of documents; second, the exchange of witness statements; and third, the submission of expert reports. This sequence is designed to prevent "trial by ambush" and to ensure that both parties have full visibility of the evidence before the Pre-Trial Review.
The Court’s reasoning is explicitly reflected in the strict deadlines imposed for the disclosure process, which serves as the foundation for the subsequent witness testimony. As the order mandates:
The parties shall comply with the terms of any Disclosure Order and file a Document Production Statement within 14 days thereafter and in any event by no later than 4pm on 24 September 2020.
By mandating that witness statements stand as evidence in chief, the Court minimized the need for oral testimony on routine matters, thereby optimizing the trial duration. The Court also required that issues from the "Agreed List of Issues" be cross-referenced in witness statements, ensuring that the evidence presented is directly relevant to the legal questions the judge will ultimately decide.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory frameworks were applied to the case management of Orient Insurance v Hazel Middle East?
The Court relied heavily on the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to govern the procedural lifecycle of the case. Specifically, the order invoked:
- RDC Part 26: Governing the Progress Monitoring Date and the Pre-Trial Review, ensuring the Court maintains oversight of the case’s trajectory.
- RDC Part 28: Governing the production of documents, including the use of Requests to Produce and the requirement for a Document Production Statement.
- RDC Part 29: Governing the exchange of signed statements of witnesses of fact and the inclusion of hearsay notices.
- RDC Part 31: Governing the permission to rely on expert evidence, specifically regarding UAE Law.
- RDC Part 35: Governing the preparation of trial bundles, reading lists, and the filing of skeleton arguments.
These rules provide the statutory architecture for the Court’s case management powers, allowing the Deputy Registrar to enforce strict deadlines while maintaining the flexibility required for complex commercial litigation.
How did the Court utilize specific precedents and procedural standards to manage the evidence in this case?
The Court’s approach to evidence management was heavily influenced by the standard practice of using "Redfern Schedules" for document production, as referenced in the footnotes of the order. This practice, common in international arbitration and adopted by the DIFC Courts, forces parties to be precise in their requests for documents, thereby reducing the scope for broad, fishing-expedition-style discovery.
Furthermore, the Court’s requirement for an "Agreed List of Issues" is a critical procedural tool used to focus the litigation. By requiring that witness statements and skeleton arguments be cross-referenced to this list, the Court ensures that the parties do not deviate into irrelevant factual or legal territory. The Court’s reliance on these standards is evident in the following directive:
Objections to Requests to Produce, if any, shall be filed and served within 28 days thereafter and in any event by no later than 4pm on 27 August 2020.
This structured approach ensures that any disputes over disclosure are resolved well in advance of the trial, preventing procedural bottlenecks.
What was the final disposition and the specific orders made by the Court on 22 July 2020?
The Court granted the consent order, effectively amending the CMC Order of 11 May 2020. The disposition was straightforward: the parties were ordered to comply with the revised schedule set out in Schedule 1 of the order. Key orders included:
- Document Production: Standard production was set for 30 July 2020, with a clear process for objections and subsequent disclosure orders.
- Witness Evidence: Witness statements were to be exchanged by 22 October 2020, with reply statements due by 5 November 2020.
- Expert Evidence: Each party was granted permission to rely on an expert in UAE Law, with reports due by 26 November 2020.
- Trial Preparation: A pre-trial review was scheduled for 19 January 2021, and the trial itself was set for 14 March 2021.
- Costs: The Court ordered "No order as to costs" for the consent application, with the costs of the CMC to be "costs in the case," meaning they will be awarded to the prevailing party at the conclusion of the trial.
What are the wider implications of this case for practitioners managing complex commercial litigation in the DIFC?
This case highlights the importance of the "Agreed List of Issues" as a primary tool for procedural efficiency. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court expects parties to be proactive in narrowing the scope of their disputes. The use of a consent order to adjust timelines demonstrates that the Court is receptive to parties who manage their own procedural timelines effectively, provided they remain within the bounds of the RDC.
For future litigants, the case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court will strictly enforce deadlines for document production and witness statements. The requirement to cross-reference witness statements to the Agreed List of Issues is a practice that practitioners should adopt early in the litigation to ensure their evidence is focused and persuasive. Failure to adhere to these procedural disciplines can result in the exclusion of evidence or the loss of the ability to rely on expert testimony.
Where can I read the full judgment in Orient Insurance v Hazel Middle East [2020] DIFC CFI 060?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-060-2019-orient-insurance-pjsc-v-hazel-middle-east-fze-3 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-060-2019_20200722.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law was cited in this procedural consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 26 (Progress Monitoring)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 28 (Production of Documents)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 29 (Witness Statements)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 31 (Expert Reports)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 35 (Trial Bundles and Skeleton Arguments)