This consent order formalizes a procedural adjustment to the litigation timetable in the ongoing dispute between Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development LLC, Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments – Sole Proprietorship LLC, and Dr. Kamal Akkach, specifically concerning the deadlines for the exchange of witness evidence.
What is the nature of the underlying dispute in CFI 087/2019 between Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development and Dr. Kamal Akkach?
The litigation involves a complex commercial dispute between the Claimants, Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development LLC and Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments – Sole Proprietorship LLC, and the Defendant, Dr. Kamal Akkach. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in this procedural order, the case has been active since at least September 2020, involving extensive case management oversight to navigate the complexities of the healthcare sector litigation.
The matter centers on the procedural progression of the claim, requiring the court to manage the exchange of evidence between the parties. The parties reached a consensus to modify the existing Agreed Case Management Order (ACM Order) to ensure that the evidentiary phase of the trial is conducted in an orderly fashion. As noted in the order:
The wording of Paragraph 12 of the ACM Order is amended to read “Any Witness Statement evidence in reply (if any)”.
The dispute remains within the Court of First Instance, where the parties are currently finalizing the preparation of witness statements of fact and subsequent reply statements. The court’s intervention via this consent order serves to facilitate the parties' agreement on these timelines, ensuring that the litigation proceeds without further procedural friction.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 087/2019 on 22 August 2021?
Registrar Nour Hineidi presided over the issuance of this consent order within the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 22 August 2021 at 2:30 pm, following a series of previous procedural adjustments made throughout late 2020 and 2021.
What specific procedural arguments did the parties advance to justify the extension of witness statement deadlines in CFI 087/2019?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, sought to amend the existing case management framework to accommodate the practical realities of preparing witness evidence. Rather than litigating the necessity of an extension, the Claimants and the Defendant reached a mutual agreement, which was then submitted to the court for formal approval.
The legal argument for the extension was rooted in the need for sufficient time to finalize signed statements of witnesses of fact and to prepare potential hearsay notices. By seeking this amendment, the parties aimed to avoid the risk of non-compliance with the original ACM Order dated 21 September 2020. The agreement reflects a collaborative approach to case management, allowing the parties to align their internal preparation schedules with the court’s requirements, thereby ensuring that the evidence presented at trial is comprehensive and properly vetted.
What was the precise legal question regarding the amendment of the ACM Order that the court had to resolve?
The court was tasked with determining whether to grant a formal variation to the Agreed Case Management Order (ACM Order) and the preceding May Consent Order. The doctrinal issue centered on the court’s discretion under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage the litigation timeline and whether the proposed amendments to the witness evidence exchange schedule were consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC, which emphasizes the efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes.
The court had to ensure that the amendment—specifically the extension of the deadline for witness statements of fact to 3 October 2021 and reply statements to 17 October 2021—did not unduly prejudice the trial date or the overall integrity of the proceedings. By approving the consent order, the court affirmed that the parties' agreement was procedurally sound and aligned with the court's case management powers.
How did Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the court’s case management powers to authorize the timeline adjustments in CFI 087/2019?
Registrar Nour Hineidi exercised the court’s authority to amend existing orders based on the mutual consent of the parties. The reasoning followed a structured approach to modifying the ACM Order, ensuring that the new deadlines were clearly defined and enforceable. The judge focused on the specific language of the previous orders, ensuring that the amendments were precise and left no ambiguity regarding the obligations of the parties.
The judge’s reasoning was guided by the necessity of maintaining a clear, updated schedule for the exchange of evidence. By incorporating the specific language requested by the parties, the court ensured that the procedural framework remained robust. The judge noted:
The wording of Paragraph 12 of the ACM Order is amended to read “Any Witness Statement evidence in reply (if any)”.
This adjustment was critical to clarifying the scope of the reply evidence, ensuring that the parties understood their obligations regarding the submission of rebuttal witness statements. The judge’s approval of the consent order effectively integrated these changes into the ongoing case management plan, providing a clear path forward for the parties to complete their evidentiary preparations.
Which specific sections of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the court’s ability to issue consent orders for case management?
The court’s authority to issue this consent order is derived from the RDC, which provides the framework for case management and the amendment of procedural timelines. While the order itself does not explicitly cite specific RDC sections, it operates under the general case management powers granted to the court to control the progress of proceedings.
The ACM Order, which serves as the foundation for this case, is a standard instrument used in the DIFC Courts to establish a binding timetable for all procedural steps, including the disclosure of documents and the exchange of witness statements. The court’s ability to amend these orders by consent is a standard practice designed to provide flexibility to parties while maintaining the court’s oversight of the litigation lifecycle.
How have previous DIFC Court precedents regarding case management influenced the court’s approach to consent orders in CFI 087/2019?
The DIFC Court of First Instance consistently relies on the principle that parties should be encouraged to reach agreements on procedural matters to minimize judicial intervention. The court’s approach in this case reflects a long-standing practice of respecting the autonomy of parties to manage their own litigation timelines, provided that such agreements do not conflict with the court’s duty to ensure the timely resolution of disputes.
The court’s reliance on the "May Consent Order" and the original "ACM Order" demonstrates a commitment to procedural consistency. By building upon these previous orders rather than issuing a new, standalone schedule, the court maintains a clear audit trail of the case’s procedural history. This approach ensures that all parties remain bound by a coherent set of rules that have evolved through mutual agreement throughout the life of the claim.
What was the final disposition of the application for an extension of time in CFI 087/2019?
The court granted the application for an extension of time, issuing a formal consent order that set the following deadlines:
1. The exchange of signed statements of witnesses of fact and hearsay notices was extended to 3:00 pm on 3 October 2021.
2. The filing and service of any witness statement evidence in reply was extended to 3:00 pm on 17 October 2021.
3. The costs of the order were designated as "costs in the case," meaning the successful party at the conclusion of the litigation will likely be entitled to recover the costs associated with this specific procedural application.
What are the wider implications for practitioners managing complex healthcare litigation in the DIFC?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts maintain a high degree of flexibility regarding case management, provided that the parties act in good faith and present a clear, agreed-upon plan to the court. The use of consent orders to adjust timelines is a standard and effective tool for managing the complexities of document-heavy or witness-intensive litigation.
However, practitioners must ensure that any proposed amendments to a case management order are drafted with precision, particularly when dealing with the scope of reply evidence. As demonstrated by the amendment to Paragraph 12 of the ACM Order, clarity in the definition of evidence is essential to avoid future disputes during the trial phase. Litigants should anticipate that the court will continue to prioritize the efficiency of the trial process, and any requests for extensions must be justified by the needs of the case rather than mere convenience.
Where can I read the full judgment in Health Bay Investment In Healthcare Enterprises & Development LLC v Dr. Kamal Akkach [2021] DIFC CFI 087?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website at the following link: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-087-2019-1-health-bay-investment-healthcare-enterprises-development-llc-2-anglo-arabian-healthcare-investments-sole-propriet-5. The document is also available via the CDN at https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-087-2019_20210822.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)
- Agreed Case Management Order (ACM Order) dated 21 September 2020
- May Consent Order dated 30 May 2021