This procedural order establishes the comprehensive litigation timetable for the ongoing dispute between Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid and Moustafa El Sayed Abdulghani El Shafaei against Nasser Shehata, Health Insights FZ-LLC, and Health Insights Asia (L) BHD.
What is the nature of the dispute in CFI 079/2023 between Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid and Nasser Shehata?
The lawsuit, registered under CFI 079/2023, involves a multi-party commercial dispute initiated by Claimants Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid and Moustafa El Sayed Abdulghani El Shafaei against Respondents Nasser Shehata, Health Insights FZ-LLC, and Health Insights Asia (L) BHD. While the specific underlying causes of action remain subject to the pleadings currently being exchanged, the litigation has progressed from an initial Part 8 Claim Form filed in October 2023 to a structured Part 7 claim process.
The dispute involves complex corporate entities, including a Free Zone Limited Liability Company and an entity registered in Labuan, Malaysia. The court is currently managing the transition from initial filings to the disclosure and evidence-gathering phase, ensuring that all parties—including the Third Defendant, which was recently brought into the procedural fold—adhere to a strict timeline for the exchange of pleadings, document production, and expert evidence.
Which judge presided over the procedural order in CFI 079/2023 and in which division of the DIFC Courts was it issued?
The order was issued by Justice Rene Le Miere, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The document, dated 12 July 2024, follows previous orders issued by the same judge on 4 March 2024 and 15 May 2024, reflecting the court's active management of the case's progression through the various stages of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
What procedural positions were taken by the parties regarding the management of CFI 079/2023?
The parties, through their legal representatives, have been directed to engage in a structured exchange of information. The Claimants were tasked with filing the Part 7 Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, while the Third Defendant was granted a specific window to file an Acknowledgement of Service and any potential jurisdictional challenges under RDC Part 12.
The court has mandated that the parties provide their availability for a Case Management Conference (CMC) to ensure the litigation remains on track. As per the order:
The Claimants and the Defendants shall provide the Registry, within 7 days from the date of this Order, with their availability for a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to take place no later than 4 weeks after 18 September 2024.
This requirement forces both sides to coordinate their schedules, preventing the procedural stagnation often seen in complex multi-jurisdictional commercial litigation.
What was the primary legal question the Court had to address in the 12 July 2024 order?
The primary issue before Justice Le Miere was the establishment of a definitive procedural timetable to govern the transition from the pleadings stage to the disclosure and evidence-gathering phase. The Court had to determine the appropriate deadlines for the filing of the Defence, Reply to Defence, and the subsequent disclosure of documents, while also accounting for the potential filing of jurisdictional challenges by the Third Defendant under RDC Part 12. The order serves to resolve the logistical uncertainty inherent in multi-party litigation involving international entities.
How did Justice Le Miere structure the document production and expert evidence process in CFI 079/2023?
Justice Le Miere utilized a phased approach to evidence, prioritizing standard disclosure before moving to specific requests for production. The order provides a clear mechanism for parties to challenge objections to document requests, ensuring that the disclosure process does not become a bottleneck. Regarding expert evidence, the court requires parties to seek permission in accordance with the RDC before proceeding:
The parties shall file and serve any Expert Report(s) (insofar an application has been made in accordance with RDC Part 23 and Part 31 and permission is granted for the same) within 3 weeks of the close of witness evidence.
This approach ensures that expert testimony is only introduced when necessary and that the scope of such evidence is defined early in the process, specifically through the Case Management Information Sheets.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory frameworks were applied in this procedural order?
The order is heavily grounded in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the court invoked RDC Part 12 regarding the Third Defendant’s potential jurisdictional challenges and RDC Part 23 for the progression of procedural applications, including those related to document production. Furthermore, the order references RDC Part 31 for expert evidence and RDC Part 35 for the preparation of trial bundles. These rules provide the procedural scaffolding necessary to move the case toward a final hearing.
How did the Court utilize RDC Part 23 and Part 31 in the context of document production and expert evidence?
The Court utilized RDC Part 23 as the primary vehicle for managing interlocutory disputes. By mandating that any dissatisfaction with document production objections be handled via a Part 23 application, the Court ensures that disputes over disclosure are resolved through a standardized, transparent process. Regarding expert evidence, the Court linked the requirements of RDC Part 31 with the procedural constraints of RDC Part 23 to ensure that the introduction of experts is not merely a tactical delay but a controlled evidentiary step.
What was the final disposition and the specific orders made by the Court on 12 July 2024?
The Court issued a comprehensive procedural timetable, setting firm deadlines for all major litigation milestones. Key orders included:
- The filing of the Defence and Counterclaim by 7 August 2024.
- Standard document production by 9 October 2024.
- The filing of witness statements by 18 December 2024.
- The filing of expert reports by 29 January 2025.
Additionally, the Court ordered that the Claimants prepare the trial materials:
The Claimants shall file and serve agreed trial bundles in accordance with Part 35 of the RDC no later than 4 weeks before the hearing date.
The order also requires the parties to file an agreed Case Memorandum and Case Management Bundle prior to the CMC, emphasizing the Court's preference for party-led cooperation in trial preparation.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners managing multi-party litigation in the DIFC?
This order highlights the DIFC Court’s rigorous approach to case management, particularly in cases involving multiple defendants across different jurisdictions. Practitioners must anticipate that the Court will not tolerate deviations from the established timetable. The requirement for parties to provide availability for a CMC and to file joint documents (such as the Case Memorandum and trial bundles) underscores the Court's expectation that legal representatives will resolve procedural disagreements without requiring judicial intervention. Failure to adhere to these deadlines, particularly regarding the filing of Case Management Information Sheets, may result in procedural sanctions or the loss of the opportunity to present expert evidence.
Where can I read the full judgment in Thamer Abdulaziz Albulaihid v Nasser Shehata [2024] DIFC CFI 079?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0792023-1-thamer-abdulaziz-albulaihid-2-moustafa-el-sayed-abdulghani-el-shafaei-v-1-nasser-shehata-2-health-insights-fz-llc-1
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law precedents were cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Part 12, Part 23, Part 31, Part 35.