This order formalizes a procedural pause in the ongoing dispute between Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development, Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments, and Dr. Kamal Akkach, facilitating a window for settlement negotiations.
What is the nature of the dispute in CFI 087/2019 between Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development and Dr. Kamal Akkach?
The litigation involves a complex commercial dispute within the healthcare sector, pitting two corporate entities—Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development LLC and Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments LLC—against the defendant, Dr. Kamal Akkach. While the specific underlying causes of action remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the matter reached a procedural juncture in July 2020 where the parties sought to prioritize alternative dispute resolution.
The court recognized the necessity of providing the parties with sufficient space to resolve their differences outside of the courtroom. By issuing a consent order, the DIFC Court effectively suspended the immediate litigation timeline to allow for confidential negotiations. As noted in the order:
The Case Management Conference currently listed for 10am on 28 July 2020 shall be adjourned for a period of two months to enable the Claimants and Defendant to continue to engage in Without Prejudice discussions. 2.
This move reflects the court's standard practice of encouraging parties to exhaust settlement avenues before proceeding to more intensive stages of litigation, such as the Case Management Conference (CMC).
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 087/2019?
The consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued on 23 July 2020 at 11:00 am, effectively vacating the CMC that had been previously scheduled for 28 July 2020.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the scheduling of the Case Management Conference in CFI 087/2019?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a mutual agreement to adjourn the proceedings. Rather than advancing adversarial arguments regarding the merits of the case, the Claimants and the Defendant presented a unified front to the court, requesting a stay of the procedural timeline. Their primary objective was to secure a two-month window to engage in "Without Prejudice" discussions. By consenting to this adjournment, both sides signaled a willingness to explore a negotiated settlement, thereby avoiding the immediate costs and judicial resources associated with a CMC.
What was the specific procedural question the DIFC Court had to resolve regarding the Case Management Conference in CFI 087/2019?
The court was required to determine whether it should grant a formal adjournment of the Case Management Conference and, if so, how to manage the associated filing deadlines. The doctrinal issue centered on the court’s case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to facilitate settlement discussions while maintaining the integrity of the litigation schedule. The court had to ensure that the adjournment did not lead to an indefinite delay, but rather a structured pause that preserved the parties' obligations to prepare for the eventual CMC.
How did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the court’s case management discretion to the adjournment request in CFI 087/2019?
The Deputy Registrar exercised the court's inherent authority to manage its docket by formalizing the parties' agreement into a binding order. By granting the adjournment, the court prioritized the potential for a consensual resolution over the strict adherence to the original July 2020 timeline. The reasoning was rooted in the efficiency of the judicial process, acknowledging that "Without Prejudice" discussions are a legitimate and encouraged component of the litigation lifecycle.
The court ensured that the procedural requirements were not abandoned, but merely deferred. The order explicitly linked the filing of documents to the new, future date of the conference:
All documents for the Case Management Conference that are currently due to be filed by no later than 4pm on 22 July 2020 shall be filed no later than seven days before the re-listed Case Management Conference.
This approach ensures that when the parties eventually return to the court, they will be fully prepared, having utilized the two-month interim period for their negotiations.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the court's power to adjourn a Case Management Conference?
The court’s authority to adjourn the CMC is derived from the broad case management powers granted under the RDC. Specifically, RDC Part 4 provides the court with the discretion to manage the progress of a claim, including the power to adjourn hearings to facilitate settlement. While the order does not cite specific RDC sections, it operates under the general mandate of the DIFC Courts to encourage the parties to cooperate and to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at a proportionate cost.
How does the DIFC Court treat "Without Prejudice" discussions in the context of procedural adjournments?
The DIFC Court consistently treats "Without Prejudice" discussions as a protected and encouraged activity. In CFI 087/2019, the court recognized that such discussions are a valid reason for delaying a CMC. By acknowledging the parties' intent to negotiate, the court effectively shields the substance of those discussions from the litigation record while providing the necessary time for them to occur. This aligns with the broader DIFC policy of promoting alternative dispute resolution as a primary mechanism for resolving complex commercial disputes.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the Case Management Conference in CFI 087/2019?
The court ordered that the CMC, originally set for 28 July 2020, be adjourned for a period of two months. The order mandated that the conference be re-listed for the first available date after 28 September 2020. Furthermore, the court issued a specific directive regarding the filing of documents, ensuring that the deadline for these submissions was pushed back to seven days before the new, re-listed date. No costs were awarded at this stage, as the order was made by consent.
What are the practical implications for practitioners seeking adjournments in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court is highly receptive to consent-based adjournments when they are supported by a clear, stated purpose, such as engaging in settlement negotiations. The case demonstrates that the court prefers a structured approach to such requests—requiring a specific timeframe for the adjournment and a clear plan for the rescheduling of procedural milestones. Litigants should be prepared to demonstrate that an adjournment will serve the interests of justice and potentially resolve the dispute, rather than merely delaying the inevitable.
Where can I read the full judgment in Health Bay Investment In Healthcare Enterprises & Development Llc (2) Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments Llc v Dr Kamal Akkach [CFI 087/2019]?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-087-2019-1-health-bay-investment-in-healthcare-enterprises-development-llc-2-anglo-arabian-healthcare-investments-llc-v-dr-k
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) - General Case Management Powers