The DIFC Court of First Instance has reaffirmed its preference for in-person proceedings, denying a claimant's request to convert a scheduled trial into a remote hearing due to the central importance of witness credibility.
Why did Karthi Keyan Venkataramana seek to vary the Case Management Order in CFI 110/2025 to mandate a remote trial?
The dispute between Karthi Keyan Venkataramana and Ahmed Mohammad Abdul Rahman Ali, initiated via a Part 7 Claim Form on 20 November 2025, reached a procedural impasse regarding the mode of trial. The Claimant filed a Letter Application on 31 March 2026, invoking Rule 23.77 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), to vary the Amended Case Management Order dated 10 February 2026. The Claimant’s objective was to shift the trial, scheduled for 6 to 8 July 2026, from an in-person format to a remote one.
The application was driven by a desire to avoid the necessity of physical attendance, likely citing broader regional instability as a factor. However, the Court remained unconvinced that the current circumstances warranted a departure from the default expectation of physical presence in the courtroom. As noted in the Court's reasoning:
The credibility of the key witnesses is likely to be central to the determination of the issues between the parties, and the Trial is scheduled to take place in three months’ time.
Which judge presided over the application to vary the trial format in CFI 110/2025?
The application was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 7 April 2026, following the Claimant’s filing on 31 March 2026 and the Defendant’s reply evidence submitted on 1 April 2026.
What specific arguments did the parties advance regarding the shift to remote proceedings in CFI 110/2025?
The Claimant, Karthi Keyan Venkataramana, sought to leverage the flexibility afforded by the RDC to move the trial to a remote platform, presumably arguing that the logistical and safety considerations of the current regional climate justified a departure from the standard in-person trial format. The Claimant’s application was formally processed under Rule 23.77, which governs the court's power to vary case management directions.
Conversely, the Defendant, Ahmed Mohammad Abdul Rahman Ali, resisted the application. The Defendant provided evidence in reply on 1 April 2026, which effectively countered the Claimant's request. While the specific content of the Defendant's evidence is not detailed in the order, the Court’s subsequent refusal indicates that the Defendant successfully maintained that the integrity of the trial process required the physical presence of the parties and their witnesses.
What was the primary doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the application of RDC Rule 23.77?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the threshold for departing from an established in-person trial order had been met under RDC Rule 23.77. The doctrinal tension lies in balancing the court's inherent case management discretion to facilitate access to justice via technology against the fundamental principle that the assessment of witness credibility is best served by physical presence. The Court had to decide if the potential for regional instability or the convenience of the parties outweighed the judicial preference for observing witnesses in a live, in-person setting.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test of witness credibility to the request for a remote trial?
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke applied a restrictive approach to the use of remote technology, emphasizing that where the core of the dispute rests upon the veracity of witness testimony, the court must prioritize the traditional trial environment. The judge reasoned that the ability to observe witnesses directly is a vital component of the fact-finding process, which could be compromised by the limitations of remote video conferencing.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the uncertainty surrounding the regional security situation. While the Court acknowledged that the environment is fluid, it determined that current conditions did not necessitate a preemptive move to remote proceedings. The Court’s reasoning was summarized as follows:
The situation in the Middle East at the time of the Trial is not presently known or capable of prediction.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural authorities were central to the Court's decision in CFI 110/2025?
The primary procedural authority cited in the order is Rule 23.77 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). This rule provides the mechanism for parties to apply for a variation of existing case management orders. The Court’s decision serves as a practical application of this rule, demonstrating that the power to vary orders is not exercised lightly, particularly when the variation would fundamentally alter the nature of the trial. The Court also relied on the Amended Case Management Order dated 10 February 2026 as the baseline for the proceedings, which the Claimant failed to successfully challenge.
How does the Court's decision in CFI 110/2025 maintain the integrity of the trial process?
The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that remote trials are an exception rather than the rule in the DIFC. By refusing the application, the Court signaled that the "best evidence" rule—in the context of witness testimony—is best served by in-person attendance. The Court did not, however, close the door entirely on future adjustments. It provided a clear pathway for the parties should the situation deteriorate, stating:
In the event that, closer to the Trial date, there are good safety or security reasons why the Trial cannot take place in person, an appropriate application may be made at that time
This approach ensures that the Court retains the flexibility to adapt to genuine emergencies while preventing parties from using speculative concerns to avoid in-person trials.
What was the final disposition of the Claimant's application and the resulting order on costs?
The Court issued a definitive refusal of the Claimant’s Letter Application. Consequently, the trial remains scheduled as an in-person proceeding from 6 to 8 July 2026. Regarding the financial implications of the application, the Court made no order as to costs, meaning each party is responsible for their own legal expenses incurred in relation to this specific procedural dispute.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding remote trial applications?
Practitioners must recognize that the DIFC Courts maintain a strong presumption in favor of in-person trials, particularly when witness credibility is a central issue. Applications to move to remote proceedings must be supported by concrete, immediate, and compelling evidence of why an in-person trial is impossible or unsafe. Speculative arguments regarding regional instability are unlikely to succeed if the trial date is still months away. Litigants should anticipate that the Court will prioritize the traditional courtroom setting to ensure the highest standard of witness evaluation, while remaining open to emergency applications if circumstances change significantly as the trial date approaches.
Where can I read the full judgment in Karthi Keyan Venkataramana v Ahmed Mohammad Abdul Rahman Ali [2026] DIFC CFI 110?
The full order is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1102025-karthi-keyan-venkataramana-v-ahmed-mohammad-abdul-rahman-ali
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Rule 23.77