The DIFC Court of First Instance has issued a procedural order mandating the consolidation of two major interlocutory applications—an Unless Order and a Security for Costs application—into the upcoming Case Management Conference (CMC) scheduled for 26 September 2025, while simultaneously abridging the filing deadlines to ensure procedural efficiency.
What is the nature of the dispute between Keshav Global Trading and ETG Commodities Holdings in CFI 069/2024?
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between the Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, and the Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited. While the underlying merits of the claim remain to be fully ventilated, the current procedural posture is defined by the Defendant’s efforts to compel compliance with previous court orders and to secure its position regarding potential litigation costs.
The Defendant has filed an "Unless Order Application" seeking to enforce compliance with paragraph 17 of an earlier order issued by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 19 March 2025, which required the production of specific information and documents. Concurrently, the Defendant has pursued a "Security for Costs Application" dated 22 August 2025. A critical development in this dispute is the Claimants' concession regarding the necessity of security. As noted in the court’s schedule of reasons:
The principle of the grant of security for costs has been accepted by the Claimant in relation to the prior application for security, so only quantum should be in issue, subject to any new argument of stifling.
This concession significantly narrows the scope of the upcoming hearing, shifting the focus from the entitlement to security toward the specific financial amount to be provided and any potential claims of financial hardship that might stifle the litigation.
Which judge presided over the procedural order in CFI 069/2024 and when was it issued?
The order was issued by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The document was formally issued by the Assistant Registrar on 29 August 2025, following the court’s consideration of the parties' correspondence dated 22 August 2025 and 26 August 2025.
What were the respective positions of the parties regarding the timeline for the Security for Costs application?
The Defendant sought to expedite the timeline for the Security for Costs application, arguing for abridged deadlines to ensure the matter could be resolved efficiently. The Claimants, while accepting the principle of security, were faced with a proposed schedule that would have significantly compressed their window for responding to the application.
The court examined the Defendant’s proposed timeline against the backdrop of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The court noted that the Defendant’s proposed dates were particularly aggressive, as they would have left the Claimants with a very narrow window to respond to what the Defendant characterized as a "heavy application." The court clarified the distinction between the timelines for standard versus complex applications:
The abridged time limits put forward by the Defendant are abridged from those required for a heavy application (which would allow the Claimant until 19 September 2025 to respond), whereas an ordinary application would entitle the Claimant to only 14 days for its response, namely by 5 September 2025.
The court ultimately determined that because the dispute over security was now confined primarily to quantum, it did not qualify as a "heavy application" requiring the longer response period.
What was the precise legal question the court had to answer regarding the scheduling of the CMC?
The court was tasked with determining whether the procedural interests of justice and case management efficiency necessitated the consolidation of the Unless Order Application and the Security for Costs Application into the CMC hearing already fixed for 26 September 2025.
The court had to balance the Claimants' right to a fair opportunity to prepare their defense against these applications with the court's inherent duty to manage litigation efficiently. Specifically, the court had to decide if the remaining time before the CMC was sufficient for the Claimants to instruct practitioners, gather evidence, and prepare submissions on both the compliance issues and the quantum of security, without prejudicing their ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test of procedural efficiency to the scheduling of the applications?
Justice Cooke applied a pragmatic approach to case management, prioritizing the resolution of interlocutory hurdles to prevent further delay. By analyzing the nature of the applications, the judge concluded that the Claimants were not being unfairly burdened, provided they acted with diligence. The court reasoned that the scope of the security for costs dispute had been sufficiently narrowed by the Claimants' own admission.
The court’s reasoning for rejecting the Claimants' potential concerns about the tight timeline was explicitly stated:
On the dates advanced by the Defendant, in respect of its Security for Costs Application dated 22 August 2025, the time for the Claimant’s response expires on 12 September so that the Claimant would only receive 6 days less to respond to a heavy application, which this should not be, if confined to quantum.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Claimants retained sufficient capacity to manage their procedural obligations, stating:
The Claimant still has adequate time to instruct DIFC Courts registered practitioners and to deal with both the Unless Order Application and the Security for Costs Application as well as advance its submissions as to the future conduct of the litigation.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural authorities were relevant to the court’s decision?
The court exercised its broad case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). While the order does not cite specific RDC rule numbers, it operates under the court's general authority to abridge time limits and direct the conduct of proceedings to ensure the "overriding objective" of the RDC—to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost—is met. The court’s authority to issue an "Unless Order" is a standard procedural tool in the DIFC to ensure compliance with court-ordered disclosure or information provision.
How did the court use the principle of "heavy application" versus "ordinary application" in its reasoning?
The court used the distinction between "heavy" and "ordinary" applications as a benchmark for fairness. By determining that the Security for Costs application was, in substance, an "ordinary" application because the principle of security was no longer in dispute, the court justified the imposition of a shorter response deadline. This prevented the Claimants from claiming the extended procedural protections typically afforded to complex, high-volume, or fact-intensive interlocutory applications, thereby accelerating the path to the 26 September 2025 CMC.
What was the outcome of the order and the specific directions issued by the court?
The court ordered a strict timeline for the exchange of evidence and skeleton arguments to ensure the CMC remains effective. The specific orders were:
- The Claimants' responsive evidence to the Security for Costs application must be filed by 4pm on 3 September 2025.
- The Defendant’s reply evidence must be filed by 4pm on 20 September 2025.
- The Defendant must provide an updated time estimate for the CMC by 4pm on 21 September 2025.
- Skeleton arguments for both applications must be filed by 4pm on 24 September 2025.
- The CMC is fixed for 26 September 2025, with the Unless Order Application to be heard first.
Regarding the Defendant's obligation to assist the court in planning the hearing, the judge noted:
The Defendant, which is represented, is to inform the Court of the estimate duration of the CMC Hearing on receipt of the Claimant’s evidence in response to the Security for Costs Application.
What are the wider implications of this order for DIFC practitioners in commercial litigation?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court of First Instance will strictly enforce procedural timelines, particularly when parties have already conceded the principle of an interlocutory application. Practitioners should anticipate that once a core issue (such as the principle of security for costs) is conceded, the court will view subsequent disputes over quantum as "ordinary" rather than "heavy," thereby justifying shorter response windows.
Furthermore, the court’s decision to consolidate multiple applications into a single CMC underscores the judiciary's commitment to case management efficiency. Litigants must be prepared to argue multiple interlocutory points in a single session and should ensure their skeleton arguments are prepared well in advance of the CMC to avoid being caught by abridged deadlines.
Where can I read the full judgment in Keshav Global Trading LLC v ETG Commodities Holdings Limited [2025] DIFC CFI 069?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0692024-1-keshav-global-trading-llc-2-keshav-global-private-limited-v-etg-commodities-holdings-limited-1
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-069-2024_20250829.txt
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)