This consent order formalizes a procedural adjustment to the case management timeline in a dispute involving Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC and Vasiliki Kakari, specifically concerning the exchange of witness evidence.
What is the nature of the underlying dispute between Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari in CFI 066/2023?
The litigation involves Emirates REIT (CEIC) PLC, acting as the Claimant and Defendant to the Counterclaim, and Vasiliki Kakari, the Defendant and Claimant to the Counterclaim. While the specific substantive allegations remain outside the scope of this procedural order, the case is currently proceeding through the Court of First Instance. The matter has reached the stage of evidence preparation, requiring the parties to finalize their factual accounts through witness statements.
The dispute is currently governed by a Case Management Order originally issued on 18 January 2024. The parties have sought to manage the litigation timeline collaboratively, leading to the current application to vary the deadlines for the exchange of witness evidence. The procedural status of the case indicates that both parties are actively engaged in the pre-trial phase, with the court facilitating the orderly progression of the matter through the issuance of consent-based amendments to the original schedule.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 066/2023?
The consent order was issued under the authority of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser, sitting in the Court of First Instance of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. The order was formally issued on 3 June 2024, following the parties' agreement to vary the timeline established in the earlier Case Management Order of 18 January 2024.
What were the positions of Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari regarding the extension of the witness statement filing deadline?
Both Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari adopted a collaborative stance, effectively bypassing the need for a contested hearing on procedural timelines. By reaching a mutual agreement to vary the dates set out in the Case Management Order, the parties demonstrated a preference for case management efficiency over adversarial motion practice.
The legal argument advanced by the parties was rooted in the necessity of ensuring that the evidentiary record—specifically the signed statements of witnesses of fact—was prepared with sufficient diligence. By submitting a consent order, the parties signaled to the Court that the extension was not intended to delay the trial unnecessarily, but rather to ensure compliance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding the quality and completeness of witness evidence.
What was the specific procedural question the Court had to resolve regarding the Case Management Order?
The Court was tasked with determining whether to approve an amendment to Paragraph 13 of the Case Management Order dated 18 January 2024. The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s discretion to manage the litigation timeline under the RDC, specifically whether the parties’ agreement to extend the deadline for filing signed statements of witnesses of fact was consistent with the overriding objective of the DIFC Courts to deal with cases justly and efficiently. The Court had to decide if the proposed extension to 12pm on 3 June 2024 was appropriate in the context of the overall case schedule.
How did H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of the CFI 066/2023 consent order?
The reasoning employed by the Court reflects the standard practice of the DIFC Courts to encourage parties to resolve procedural disputes without judicial intervention. By acknowledging the agreement reached between Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari, the Court exercised its case management powers to formalize the new deadline, ensuring that the procedural integrity of the case remained intact.
The Court’s decision to grant the order was predicated on the parties' consensus, which serves as a practical application of the RDC’s emphasis on cooperative litigation. By amending the specific paragraph of the original Case Management Order, the Court ensured that the parties were aligned on the new deadline for witness evidence. Regarding the financial implications of this procedural step, the Court specified:
The costs relating to this Consent Order shall be treated as ‘costs in the case’.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) were invoked in the context of this procedural variation?
While the order does not cite specific RDC rule numbers beyond a general reference to the RDC, the application for the variation of the Case Management Order falls under the Court’s broad case management powers. The reference to "hearsay notices where required by the RDC" indicates that the parties are expected to adhere to the strict evidentiary requirements set out in the Rules of the DIFC Courts when filing their witness statements. The Court’s authority to amend the Case Management Order is derived from its inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and the specific powers granted to the Court of First Instance to manage the progression of litigation.
How does the treatment of costs in CFI 066/2023 align with standard DIFC Court practice for consent orders?
The order stipulates that the costs of the application are to be "costs in the case." This is a standard approach in the DIFC Courts for procedural consent orders, meaning that the costs incurred by the parties in negotiating and filing this specific order will be determined at the conclusion of the litigation, typically following the final judgment. By deferring the cost allocation, the Court avoids incentivizing satellite litigation over minor procedural adjustments, ensuring that the ultimate liability for costs remains tied to the final outcome of the substantive dispute between Emirates REIT and Vasiliki Kakari.
What was the final disposition of the application filed by the parties in CFI 066/2023?
The Court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The primary effect of the order was the amendment of Paragraph 13 of the Case Management Order of 18 January 2024. The new deadline for the filing of signed statements of witnesses of fact was set for 12pm on 3 June 2024. The order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton on behalf of the Court, confirming that the procedural adjustment was formally recorded and binding upon both the Claimant and the Defendant.
How does this consent order impact the expectations for future case management in DIFC litigation?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts prioritize the parties' ability to manage their own litigation timelines through consent. For practitioners, the takeaway is that procedural flexibility is readily available provided that the parties reach a clear, written agreement and present it to the Court in a timely manner. Litigants should anticipate that the Court will generally approve such variations to Case Management Orders without requiring a formal hearing, provided the request does not prejudice the trial date or the overriding objective of the RDC.
Where can I read the full judgment in Emirates Reit (CEIC) PLC v Vasiliki Kakari [2024] DIFC CFI 066?
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-3
The document is also available for download via the CDN: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-066-2023_20240603.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)