This consent order formalizes the procedural roadmap for the litigation between Orient Insurance PJSC and Hazel Middle East FZE, establishing a comprehensive 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 PJSC and Hazel Middle East FZE in CFI 060/2019?
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Orient Insurance PJSC (the Claimant) and Hazel Middle East FZE (the Defendant). While the underlying substantive claims are not detailed in this specific order, the matter has progressed through the DIFC Court of First Instance under case number CFI 060/2019. The parties reached a consensus to modify the existing Case Management directions to ensure the efficient progression of the trial.
The procedural focus of this order is the management of complex evidentiary requirements, including the production of documents and the reliance on expert testimony regarding UAE Law. The court’s intervention serves to solidify the deadlines for the parties to finalize their respective positions ahead of the trial date. As noted in the order:
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.
Further details regarding the case filings and the progression of the dispute can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts portal: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-060-2019-orient-insurance-pjsc-v-hazel-middle-east-fze-4.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 060/2019?
The consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi on 13 August 2020. The order was processed within the Court of First Instance, reflecting the administrative oversight required to amend previously established case management directions in this ongoing commercial matter.
What were the positions of Orient Insurance PJSC and Hazel Middle East FZE regarding the amendment of the CMC Order?
The parties, Orient Insurance PJSC and Hazel Middle East FZE, adopted a collaborative approach by seeking a consent order to amend the Case Management Conference (CMC) directions originally set on 11 May 2020. By filing for a consent order, both parties signaled their agreement on the revised procedural timeline, thereby avoiding the need for a contested hearing regarding the scheduling of disclosure, witness statements, and expert reports.
This alignment allows the parties to focus their resources on the substantive merits of the case rather than procedural disputes. The agreement covers the entire spectrum of trial preparation, ensuring that both the Claimant and the Defendant are bound by the same deadlines for filing skeleton arguments and trial bundles, as reflected in the following requirement:
Skeleton Arguments and Written Opening Statements for the Claimant and the Defendant shall be filed and served by no later than 4pm on 7 March 2021.
What was the jurisdictional and procedural question the court had to address in the context of the August 2020 consent order?
The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed amendments to the Case Management directions were consistent with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) and whether they would facilitate the "overriding objective" of dealing with cases justly and at a proportionate cost. Specifically, the court had to ensure that the revised schedule for document production and expert evidence remained compatible with the trial date of 14 March 2021.
The doctrinal issue centered on the court's power to manage the litigation process under RDC Part 26. By approving the consent order, the court affirmed that the parties' agreed-upon timeline for expert reports on UAE Law and the exchange of witness statements was sufficient to prepare the matter for a 4-to-6-day trial.
How did the court apply the RDC framework to structure the evidentiary phase in CFI 060/2019?
The court utilized a structured approach to evidentiary management, specifically addressing the disclosure of documents and the submission of witness statements. The reasoning follows a logical progression: first, the production of documents; second, the exchange of factual witness evidence; and third, the introduction of expert testimony. This sequence ensures that all parties have access to the necessary evidence before the trial commences.
The court emphasized the importance of the disclosure stage, setting firm deadlines for both the production of documents and the resolution of any objections to requests to produce. As specified in the order:
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 1 October 2020.
This systematic approach ensures that the trial remains focused on the core issues identified in the Agreed List of Issues.
Which specific RDC rules were invoked to govern the procedural timeline in this case?
The order explicitly references several parts of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the litigation:
- RDC Part 26: Governs the Progress Monitoring Date and the Pre-Trial Review, ensuring the court maintains oversight of the trial preparation.
- RDC Part 28: Governs the Production of Documents, providing the framework for the parties to exchange relevant evidence.
- RDC Part 29: Governs the submission and exchange of Witness Statements, including the requirement for statements to stand as evidence in chief.
- RDC Part 31: Governs the use of Expert Reports, specifically permitting expert evidence on UAE Law.
- RDC Part 35: Governs the preparation of Trial Bundles, Reading Lists, and Skeleton Arguments.
How did the court utilize the RDC framework to manage document production and witness evidence?
The court applied the RDC rules to create a rigid schedule for the disclosure of evidence. For instance, the court set a clear deadline for the standard production of documents, ensuring that the parties could not delay the process. As noted in the order:
Standard production of documents shall be made by each party by no later than 4pm on 3 August 2020.
Furthermore, the court established a strict timeline for the exchange of witness statements, requiring that they be exchanged five weeks after the close of the disclosure stage. This ensures that the parties have sufficient time to review the evidence before filing reply statements, as stipulated in the following provision:
Any Witness Statement evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 2 weeks thereafter and in any event by no later than 4pm on 5 November 2020.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the amendment of the CMC Order?
The court granted the consent order, effectively amending the CMC Order in the form set out in Schedule 1. The court ordered that there be no order as to costs regarding the application for the consent order, meaning each party bears its own costs for this specific procedural step. The trial was confirmed for 14 March 2021, with an estimated duration of 4 to 6 days.
What are the practical implications for practitioners following the procedural requirements set in CFI 060/2019?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court expects strict adherence to the deadlines set out in consent orders, particularly regarding the filing of trial bundles and skeleton arguments. The requirement to cross-reference witness statements and skeleton arguments to an "Agreed List of Issues" is a critical procedural step that practitioners must integrate into their trial preparation. Failure to comply with these specific formatting requirements can lead to administrative delays and potential sanctions by the court.
Furthermore, the use of Redfern schedules for document production remains an encouraged practice in the DIFC. Practitioners should ensure that their requests to produce are precise and that objections are filed within the strict 28-day window provided by the court to avoid the necessity of a court-led determination.
Where can I read the full judgment in Orient Insurance PJSC v Hazel Middle East FZE [2020] DIFC CFI 060?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the 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-4. The document is also available via the CDN: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-060-2019_20200813.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case precedents cited in this procedural consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 26 (Progress Monitoring and Pre-Trial Review)
- RDC Part 28 (Production of Documents)
- RDC Part 29 (Witness Statements)
- RDC Part 31 (Expert Reports)
- RDC Part 35 (Trial Bundles, Reading Lists, and Skeleton Arguments)