This amended consent order formalizes the procedural recalibration of the ongoing dispute between Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC and Vasiliki Kakari, specifically addressing the terms under which the Defendant may amend her pleadings and the associated financial consequences.
What are the specific procedural terms governing the Defendant’s right to amend her Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in CFI 066/2023?
The lawsuit involves a dispute between Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC and Vasiliki Kakari, currently pending before the DIFC Court of First Instance. The core of this specific order concerns the Defendant’s request to amend her Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. The Claimant, Emirates REIT, consented to these amendments on the condition that the Defendant compensate the Claimant for the costs incurred as a direct result of the amendment process.
The order mandates that the Defendant must file and serve the Amended Defence and Counterclaim in the exact form previously shared with Claimant’s counsel on 20 March 2024. This procedural step is intrinsically linked to the payment of costs, ensuring that the Claimant is not unfairly prejudiced by the late-stage introduction of new or modified allegations. The order also sets a strict timeline for the subsequent exchange of pleadings, including the Claimant’s Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, and the Defendant’s subsequent Reply to the Defence to Counterclaim, effectively resetting the case management schedule established in January 2024.
Which judicial officer presided over the issuance of the amended consent order in CFI 066/2023?
The amended consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued and re-issued on 23 April 2024 at 2:00 PM, reflecting the court's oversight in ensuring that the parties' agreed-upon procedural variations remained consistent with the efficient administration of justice within the DIFC jurisdiction.
What specific legal arguments and cost-related conditions did the parties negotiate to reach this consent order?
The parties reached a consensus regarding the amendment of pleadings, which is governed by RDC 18.27. The Claimant’s primary position was that it would waive its objections to the Defendant’s proposed amendments only if the Defendant agreed to cover the costs associated with the resulting procedural disruption. This was not a contested hearing but rather a negotiated resolution where the parties sought to avoid the expense of a formal application to the Court.
The Defendant’s counsel provided a formal undertaking to pay the Claimant a fixed sum of AED 37,500 (excluding VAT) to cover the costs of and arising from the Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. By agreeing to this fixed sum, the parties bypassed the need for a detailed assessment of costs, thereby streamlining the litigation process and allowing the case to move forward without further delay regarding the scope of the pleadings.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the variation of the case management order?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the parties’ agreement to vary the existing case management order of 18 January 2024 was consistent with the overriding objective of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The doctrinal issue centered on the court’s power to manage the litigation timeline while balancing the parties' rights to amend their pleadings against the need for procedural finality.
By issuing the consent order, the Court effectively exercised its discretion to modify the trial preparation schedule. The legal question was not whether the amendments were substantive, but whether the procedural framework—specifically the timelines for document production and the exchange of replies—could be adjusted by consent without compromising the integrity of the trial date or the fairness of the proceedings to either party.
How did the Court structure the document production process to ensure efficiency in light of the amended pleadings?
The Court established a rigorous timeline for document production, recognizing that the amended pleadings might necessitate a fresh look at the evidence. The order provides a clear mechanism for the parties to serve Requests to Produce and sets specific deadlines for objections and potential applications for a Document Production Order.
The Parties shall file and serve a Request to Produce, if any, by no later than 4pm on 3 May 2024.
The Court further clarified the mechanism for challenging objections to ensure that the litigation does not stall during the discovery phase.
If a party is not satisfied with the objections to any Request to Produce it may apply to the Court for a Document Production Order using the Part 23 Form (the “Document Production Application”).
Which specific RDC rules were applied by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton in the context of this consent order?
The order explicitly invokes RDC 18.27, which governs the amendment of statements of case. This rule provides the procedural basis for the Defendant to alter her position, provided that the Claimant’s costs are addressed. Furthermore, the order references RDC 23, which pertains to the procedures for document production. The application of these rules ensures that the amendment process is not used as a tactical delay but is instead integrated into a structured, court-sanctioned timeline.
How did the Court modify the standard RDC 23 timelines to expedite the resolution of potential document production disputes?
The Court utilized its discretionary power to compress the standard timelines for document production applications, reflecting the need to keep the trial date on track despite the procedural amendments. The order explicitly states:
The usual timelines under RDC 23, for progression of the Document Production Application will be reduced to 10 days to file evidence in answer and 7 days to file evidence in reply.
This reduction in time is a critical feature of the order, signaling to the parties that the Court expects a high level of diligence in the document production phase. By staying the dates for subsequent orders (Orders 13-23) upon the filing of a Document Production Application, the Court creates a conditional stay that forces the parties to prioritize the resolution of discovery disputes before moving to the next phase of the trial preparation.
What was the final disposition of the costs and procedural requests in CFI 066/2023?
The Court granted the order by consent, formalizing the following:
1. The Defendant was permitted to file her Amended Defence and Counterclaim.
2. The Claimant was granted until 23 April 2024 to file its Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
3. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant a fixed sum of AED 37,500 in costs by 22 April 2024.
4. A new, accelerated schedule for document production was established, with Requests to Produce due by 3 May 2024 and objections due by 14 May 2024.
5. The Court reserved the right to set new dates for subsequent procedural steps if a Document Production Application is filed, with the ultimate goal of maintaining the trial date.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the amendment of pleadings and cost undertakings?
This case serves as a practical reminder that the DIFC Court favors the resolution of procedural disputes through consent orders, provided that the party seeking the amendment is prepared to indemnify the other side for the resulting costs. Practitioners should note that the Court is willing to reduce standard RDC 23 timelines to ensure that procedural amendments do not derail the trial schedule.
The use of a fixed cost sum (AED 37,500) in this instance highlights the efficiency of negotiating costs upfront rather than leaving them to a future assessment. Litigants should anticipate that when they seek to vary a case management order, the Court will likely require a clear, time-bound plan for document production to ensure that the case remains on the judicial track.
Where can I read the full judgment in Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC v Vasiliki Kakari [2024] DIFC CFI 066?
The full text of the Amended Consent Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0662023-emirates-reit-ceic-plc-v-vasiliki-kakari-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law was cited in this consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 18.27
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 23