This Consent Order formalizes the procedural roadmap for the final adjudication of the commercial dispute between Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development LLC, Anglo Arabian Healthcare Investments, and Dr. Kamal Akkach, establishing a definitive timeline leading to a five-day trial.
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 lawsuit 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—against the defendant, Dr. Kamal Akkach. While the specific substantive allegations remain subject to the ongoing litigation, the matter has been active in the DIFC Court of First Instance since 2019, involving extensive pre-trial case management. The litigation concerns significant commercial interests, necessitating a structured approach to evidence and trial preparation.
The procedural history of this case is extensive, marked by a series of prior consent orders that sought to manage the discovery and preparation phases. The March 2022 order serves as the current governing framework, consolidating the procedural requirements for the parties. As noted in the order:
This Consent Order (the “March 2022 Consent Oder”) supersedes all previous orders from this Court in relation to the directions which are made herein.
This consolidation ensures that all parties are aligned on the final steps required to bring the matter to a resolution. Further details regarding the case history can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which DIFC Court of First Instance judge oversaw the issuance of the March 2022 Consent Order in CFI 087/2019?
The Consent Order was issued by the DIFC Courts’ Registry under the authority of Registrar Nour Hineidi on 22 March 2022. This order was processed within the Court of First Instance, following the listing of the trial by the Registry on 31 January 2022.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the procedural timeline in CFI 087/2019?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a consensus on the necessity of a revised procedural timetable to ensure the efficient conduct of the trial. Rather than litigating procedural disputes, the Claimants and the Defendant opted for a collaborative approach, resulting in the March 2022 Consent Order. This agreement reflects a mutual commitment to meeting specific deadlines for witness statements, trial bundles, and skeleton arguments, thereby avoiding further judicial intervention on case management issues.
The parties’ positions were focused on streamlining the final stages of the litigation. By agreeing to the terms of the order, both sides acknowledged the need for a clear, cross-referenced chronology and a composite bundle of authorities to assist the Court. This cooperative stance is evidenced by the requirement that:
In the event that there are areas of disagreement, the Chronology shall include an agreed Chronology and a Chronology of events which are disputed, with the parties’ respective positions outlined therein.
What was the primary legal question the Court had to address in the March 2022 Consent Order?
The Court was tasked with determining the final procedural architecture required to facilitate a fair and efficient trial. The primary legal question was not substantive, but rather one of case management: how to reconcile the previous, fragmented consent orders into a single, binding schedule that would ensure the readiness of the parties for the trial listed for 5 December 2022. The Court had to ensure that the requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding witness evidence, trial bundles, and pre-trial reviews were strictly satisfied within the remaining timeframe.
How did the Court exercise its case management powers to ensure the trial in CFI 087/2019 proceeds on 5 December 2022?
The Court utilized its authority under the RDC to impose a rigorous schedule, ensuring that all evidentiary and preparatory hurdles are cleared well before the trial date. By mandating specific deadlines for witness statements, trial bundles, and the filing of skeleton arguments, the Court minimized the risk of last-minute delays. The reasoning behind this structured approach is to provide the Court with a clear, agreed-upon record of the case.
The Court’s approach emphasizes the importance of preparation, particularly regarding the evidentiary record. The order mandates that:
The parties shall prepare an agreed Chronology of significant events cross-referenced to significant documents, pleadings and Witness Statements which shall be filed with the Court, by the Claimants, by 4pm on 14 November 2022.
This ensures that the judge presiding over the trial will have a coherent narrative of the dispute, supported by the relevant documentation, thereby optimizing the five-day trial duration.
Which specific RDC rules were applied to govern the trial preparation in CFI 087/2019?
The Court relied on several key provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to structure the trial preparation. Specifically, RDC Part 29 was invoked to govern the exchange and filing of signed witness statements of fact and hearsay notices. RDC Part 26 was utilized to schedule the Progress Monitoring Date and the Pre-Trial Review, ensuring that the Court maintains oversight of the case’s readiness. Finally, RDC Part 35 was applied to regulate the filing of trial bundles, the reading list, the trial timetable, and the exchange of skeleton arguments.
How did the Court utilize the RDC Part 35 requirements to manage the trial documentation?
The Court applied RDC Part 35 to ensure that the trial is conducted with maximum efficiency. By requiring the Claimants to file a composite bundle of authorities, the Court ensures that the legal arguments are supported by accessible, organized references. The order specifies:
The Claimants shall prepare and lodge with the Court a composite bundle of authorities referred to in both parties’ Skeleton Arguments by 4pm on 1 December 2022.
Furthermore, the Court mandated that the reading list and trial timetable be filed by 28 November 2022, as stated:
An agreed reading list for Trial along with an estimate of time required for reading and an estimated timetable for Trial shall be filed with the Court, by the Claimants, by 4pm on 28 November 2022.
What was the final disposition of the March 2022 Consent Order and how were costs addressed?
The Court issued a Consent Order that formally established the procedural timetable for the remainder of the case. The order set the trial date for 5 December 2022, with an estimated duration of five days, including a half-day for judicial pre-reading. Regarding the costs of the application, the Court ordered that the costs of the March 2022 Consent Order shall be "costs in the case," meaning the ultimate liability for these costs will be determined at the conclusion of the trial.
What are the wider implications of this Consent Order for practitioners managing complex commercial litigation in the DIFC?
This case highlights the critical importance of maintaining a clean and consolidated procedural record in long-running DIFC litigation. For practitioners, the primary takeaway is the necessity of utilizing consent orders to "clean up" the procedural history of a case, especially when multiple prior orders have been issued. By superseding all previous directions, the March 2022 Consent Order provides a clear, unambiguous roadmap that prevents confusion and potential procedural challenges as the trial date approaches. Practitioners should anticipate that the DIFC Court will expect strict adherence to these consolidated deadlines and will favor the use of agreed chronologies to narrow the scope of factual disputes.
Where can I read the full judgment in Health Bay Investment in Healthcare Enterprises & Development v Dr. Kamal Akkach [2022] DIFC CFI 087?
The full text of the Consent Order can be accessed via the 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-7. The document is also available on the CDN at https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-087-2019_20220322.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) Part 26
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 29
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 35