The DIFC Court of First Instance formalised a procedural agreement between the parties regarding the timeline for the filing of the Defence in the ongoing litigation between Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC and Vasiliki Kakari.
What is the nature of the dispute between Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari in CFI 066/2023?
The litigation under case number CFI 066/2023 involves a claim brought by Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC against the defendant, Vasiliki Kakari. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain outside the scope of this specific procedural order, the matter reached a juncture where the defendant required additional time to formalise and submit her Defence. The dispute represents a standard commercial litigation process within the DIFC Court of First Instance, where procedural compliance is strictly monitored to ensure the efficient progression of claims.
The procedural status of the case was addressed through a formal application for an extension of time. As noted in the official record: "The Defendant is granted a retrospective extension of time to file its Defence by no later than 12pm on 17 November 2023." This order serves to regularise the defendant’s position in the proceedings, ensuring that the Defence, once filed, is considered timely and compliant with the court’s expectations for the exchange of pleadings.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 066/2023?
The consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton within the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally dated and issued on 7 December 2023, at 2:00 PM, following the parties' mutual agreement to the terms governing the extension of the filing deadline.
What were the positions of Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari regarding the procedural timeline?
The parties, Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC and Vasiliki Kakari, reached a consensus regarding the management of the litigation timeline. Rather than engaging in contested motion practice, which would have required the court to adjudicate on the merits of a delay, the parties opted to utilise the mechanism provided under the DIFC Court Rules. By agreeing to the terms of the extension, the claimant effectively waived any objection to the defendant’s late filing, provided that the Defence was submitted by the specified cut-off date.
This collaborative approach reflects the standard practice in the DIFC Courts, where parties are encouraged to resolve procedural disputes without judicial intervention. By filing a consent order, the parties avoided the costs and time associated with a formal hearing, allowing the court to simply ratify the agreement reached between the legal representatives of Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari.
What was the specific legal question the court had to answer regarding the filing of the Defence?
The primary legal question before the court was whether it should exercise its discretion to grant a retrospective extension of time for the filing of a Defence under the framework of the DIFC Court Rules. The court was tasked with determining if the agreement between the parties provided a sufficient basis to regularise a filing that had already occurred or was intended to occur after the original deadline had passed.
The court did not need to weigh the merits of the underlying claim or the reasons for the delay in detail, as the parties had already reached a consensus. Instead, the court’s role was to ensure that the request for a retrospective extension complied with the procedural requirements of the RDC and that granting such an order would not prejudice the orderly conduct of the proceedings.
How did Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton apply the procedural test for granting a retrospective extension?
Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton exercised the court’s authority to formalise the agreement between the parties, ensuring that the procedural record accurately reflected the extended deadline. The reasoning process was straightforward, relying on the parties' mutual consent to bypass the standard adversarial process for seeking extensions. By invoking the specific rule governing such agreements, the court ensured that the defendant’s Defence was brought within the scope of the court’s procedural timeline.
The court’s reasoning is encapsulated in the following directive: "The Defendant is granted a retrospective extension of time to file its Defence by no later than 12pm on 17 November 2023." By setting this specific time, the court provided a clear, enforceable deadline that resolved the uncertainty surrounding the defendant's filing status. This action effectively cured any potential procedural default that might have arisen from the delay.
Which specific DIFC Court Rules were applied to facilitate the consent order in CFI 066/2023?
The primary authority cited for this order is Rule 16.11 of the DIFC Court Rules. This rule provides the mechanism by which parties may agree to extend the time for compliance with a procedural requirement, such as the filing of a Defence. By invoking Rule 16.11, the parties were able to present a consent order to the court, which the Assistant Registrar then reviewed and approved. This rule is essential for the efficient management of cases in the DIFC, as it allows parties to manage their own timelines while maintaining the court's oversight of the litigation schedule.
How does the application of Rule 16.11 in this case reflect the court's approach to procedural flexibility?
The application of Rule 16.11 in this instance demonstrates the DIFC Court’s preference for party autonomy in procedural matters. Rather than imposing rigid deadlines that might necessitate formal applications and hearings, the court allows for the use of consent orders to manage the flow of litigation. This approach reduces the burden on the court’s resources and provides parties with the flexibility to accommodate the practical realities of complex commercial disputes. The court’s role, as evidenced here, is to act as a facilitator of the parties' agreement, provided that the agreement is consistent with the overall objective of the DIFC Court Rules to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost.
What was the final disposition and the order regarding costs in CFI 066/2023?
The court granted the application for a retrospective extension of time, allowing the defendant to file her Defence by 12:00 PM on 17 November 2023. Regarding the costs of the application, the court ordered that the "costs of this Consent Order shall be costs in the case." This means that the costs incurred in obtaining this order will be determined at the conclusion of the litigation, typically following the final judgment, and will be awarded to the successful party or as otherwise directed by the court at that time.
What are the practical takeaways for practitioners managing deadlines in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court prioritises the use of consent orders under Rule 16.11 to manage procedural delays. When a party anticipates that they will be unable to meet a filing deadline, the most efficient course of action is to seek the opposing party's agreement to an extension. By documenting this agreement in a consent order, practitioners can avoid the risk of a default judgment or the need for a contested application for an extension of time. This case serves as a reminder that the court is willing to accommodate reasonable requests for extensions when both parties are in agreement, provided the request is formalised in accordance with the RDC.
Where can I read the full judgment in Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC v Vasiliki Kakari [CFI 066/2023]?
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-0662023-emirates-reit-ceic-plc-v-vasiliki-kakari. The document is also available for reference via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-066-2023_20231207.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Court Rules (RDC): Rule 16.11