This consent order formalizes the procedural roadmap for the ongoing litigation between Sanjeev and Alka Sawhney and Credit Suisse AG, following a significant judicial determination on strike-out and amendment applications.
What are the core procedural disputes between Sanjeev Sawhney, Alka Sawhney, and Credit Suisse AG regarding their respective statements of case?
The litigation, initiated by the Claimants against Credit Suisse AG, involves a complex history of pleadings, including multiple applications for strike-out and immediate judgment. The parties reached this consent order to streamline the evidentiary and pleading framework following H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani’s February 2023 ruling. A central component of this agreement was the removal of redundant or superseded Requests for Further Information (RFI) that had cluttered the record during the initial stages of the dispute.
By mutual agreement, the parties sought to sanitize the record of various RFIs exchanged between September and December 2021. This ensures that the forthcoming amended pleadings reflect the current state of the litigation rather than historical procedural skirmishes. Specifically, the order addresses the status of the Defendant’s First RFI, the Claimants’ First RFI, and the Defendant’s Second RFI. As noted in the order:
(b) The Claimants’ First RFI dated 27 October 2021, and the Defendant’s response dated 2 November 2021 shall no longer form part of the Defendant’s statement of case.
Additionally, the parties agreed to the formal withdrawal of outstanding requests to avoid further administrative burden on the Court. Regarding the Defendant’s Second RFI, the order confirms:
(c) The Defendant’s Second RFI dated 28 December 2021, shall be deemed withdrawn, and the Claimants shall not be required to provide a response to the same.
Which judge presided over the procedural timeline and consent order in CFI 062/2021?
The procedural direction and the underlying substantive rulings leading to this consent order were overseen by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued on 18 April 2023, following the Court’s earlier determination on 23 February 2023, which resolved the competing applications for strike-out and immediate judgment filed by both parties.
What were the primary positions of the Claimants and Credit Suisse AG regarding the amendment of their pleadings?
The Claimants, Sanjeev and Alka Sawhney, sought leave to file an amended Particulars of Claim to align their case with the Court’s previous directions. Their position was that the "Revised Draft APOC" accurately reflected the scope of the claim permitted by the Court’s February 2023 Order. Conversely, Credit Suisse AG, having previously filed multiple applications for strike-out and immediate judgment, engaged in a collaborative process to ensure the amended pleadings were consistent with the Court’s findings. The parties’ counsel negotiated the specific terms of the Revised Draft APOC to avoid further interlocutory disputes, ultimately submitting the agreed timeline to the Court for formal approval.
What legal question did the Court address regarding the status of Requests for Further Information (RFI) under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)?
The Court was required to determine whether historical RFIs, which were served prior to the substantive rulings on strike-out and amendment, should remain part of the formal record. Under the RDC, an RFI is considered a statement of case. The legal issue was whether the parties could, by consent, excise these documents from the record to simplify the issues for trial. The Court accepted the parties' agreement that the RFI history had become obsolete in light of the new, court-sanctioned amended pleadings, thereby preventing the record from becoming unnecessarily voluminous or confusing.
How did the Court apply the RDC to facilitate the filing of amended statements of case without the requirement to show original text?
The Court utilized its discretionary powers under the RDC to permit a "clean" version of the pleadings. By dispensing with the requirement to show tracked changes or original text, the Court aimed to improve the clarity of the litigation. This approach is particularly useful in complex financial disputes where multiple iterations of pleadings can obscure the core allegations. The reasoning was grounded in the need for procedural efficiency, as reflected in the following provision:
Pursuant to RDC Part 18.25, none of the amended statements of case as referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 above need to show the original text.
This allows the parties to focus the Court’s attention on the operative facts and legal arguments currently in dispute, rather than the historical evolution of the pleadings.
Which specific RDC rules were invoked to govern the amendment of the Particulars of Claim and the procedural timeline?
The order explicitly relies on RDC Part 18.2, which governs the amendment of statements of case. This rule provides the necessary framework for the Claimants to serve their Revised Draft APOC. Furthermore, the order references the Schedule to RDC Part 2, which defines the scope of a "statement of case" to include formal written further information. By invoking these rules, the Court provided a clear legal basis for the parties to withdraw specific RFIs and proceed with the filing of amended documents.
How did the Court structure the procedural timeline for the filing of the Amended Particulars of Claim, Amended Defence, and Amended Reply?
The Court established a staggered schedule to ensure the orderly progression of the case. The Claimants were granted leave to file their Amended Particulars of Claim by 20 April 2023, followed by the Defendant’s Amended Defence by 8 June 2023, and the Claimants’ Amended Reply by 20 July 2023. This timeline is designed to ensure that both parties have sufficient time to address the issues raised in the Court’s February 2023 Order. The specific directive for the Claimants is as follows:
Pursuant to RDC Part 18.2 and the Order, the Claimants have leave to file and serve their Amended Particulars of Claim in the form of the Revised Draft APOC (subject to the further changes that have been agreed between the parties in correspondence) by no later than
4pm on 20 April 2023.
What was the final disposition regarding the costs of the consent order?
The Court ordered that the costs of the consent order be treated as "costs in the case," meaning the ultimate liability for these costs will be determined at the conclusion of the litigation, subject to any prior orders made by the Court. This preserves the parties' positions regarding the substantive merits of the dispute. The order specifies:
Save in relation to those costs dealt with in the Order and Reasons (which shall be dealt with as directed therein), the costs of this Order shall be costs in the case.
How does this consent order influence the management of complex financial litigation in the DIFC?
This order serves as a practical example of how parties in high-stakes financial litigation can utilize consent orders to resolve procedural bottlenecks. By agreeing to withdraw obsolete RFIs and filing clean versions of amended pleadings, the parties have significantly reduced the potential for future interlocutory disputes. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts are generally supportive of such collaborative procedural management, provided it aligns with the Court’s prior substantive rulings and promotes the overriding objective of the RDC.
Where can I read the full judgment in Sanjeev Sawhney (2) Alka Sawhney v Credit Suisse AG [2023] DIFC CFI 062?
The full text of the consent order is available on the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0622021-1-sanjeev-sawhney-2-alka-sawhney-v-credit-suisse-ag-10 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-062-2021_20230418.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in the consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC Part 2 (Schedule)
- RDC Part 18.2
- RDC Part 18.25