This consent order formalizes a critical procedural adjustment in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital, specifically regarding the exchange of witness evidence in the Technology and Construction Division.
What specific procedural deadlines were modified by the consent order in TCD 001/2020 on 11 October 2021?
The litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and the defendants, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Mr. Christian Thurner, involves complex commercial allegations necessitating rigorous evidence management. The order dated 11 October 2021 was necessitated by the parties' mutual agreement to adjust the timeline for the submission of witness evidence, which had been previously governed by the Amended Case Management Order (ACMO) of Justice Sir Richard Field and subsequent orders.
The dispute, which centers on high-stakes financial and technological transactions, has required multiple procedural interventions to ensure the orderly progression of the trial. The specific relief granted by the Registrar was to extend the deadline for the filing, service, and exchange of signed witness statements of fact and hearsay notices. The court sanctioned this variation to ensure that both the Claimant and the Defendants had sufficient time to finalize their evidentiary submissions, as reflected in the following directive:
Paragraph 8 of the ACMO shall be varied to provide that the parties shall file, serve and exchange the signed witness statements of fact, and hearsay notices by 4pm on 12 October 2021.
For further context on the broader litigation history, see the earlier procedural developments in HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Formalizing TCD jurisdiction for complex commercial disputes and HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural framework for cryptocurrency litigation (04 February 2021).
Which judicial officer presided over the issuance of the 11 October 2021 consent order in the Technology and Construction Division?
The order was issued by the Registrar of the DIFC Courts, Nour Hineidi, on 11 October 2021 at 3:30 pm. While the underlying case management framework was established by Justice Sir Richard Field and H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri, this specific procedural variation was processed through the Registrar’s office under the authority granted by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to facilitate consent-based amendments to case management timelines.
How did the parties justify the need for a variation of the ACMO and the Production Order?
The parties, Huobi OTC DMCC and the respondents, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Mr. Christian Thurner, reached a consensus on the necessity of extending the witness evidence deadline. By moving for a consent order, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, signaling a cooperative approach to the final stages of pre-trial preparation.
The legal arguments for this extension were rooted in the practical requirements of preparing complex witness statements of fact and hearsay notices. Given the technical nature of the underlying dispute—which involves cryptocurrency custody and investment management—the parties argued that the existing timeline, as set out in the ACMO of 22 June 2021 and the subsequent 4 October 2021 Consent Order, was insufficient for the finalization of these documents. By seeking this variation, the parties ensured that the evidence presented to the court would be comprehensive and properly vetted, thereby preventing potential procedural delays during the trial phase.
What was the precise jurisdictional question the Registrar had to resolve regarding the variation of existing orders?
The court was tasked with determining whether it possessed the requisite authority to vary a series of existing, binding orders—specifically the ACMO, the Production Order, and the 4 October 2021 Consent Order—based solely on the agreement of the parties. The doctrinal issue centered on the court's case management powers under the RDC to amend its own previous directions to accommodate the evolving needs of the litigation. The Registrar had to confirm that the proposed variation complied with the procedural safeguards of the RDC, ensuring that the amendment did not prejudice the integrity of the trial schedule or the rights of the parties.
What reasoning did the Registrar employ to satisfy the requirements of RDC r.4.2 and Part 26?
The Registrar’s reasoning was predicated on the court’s inherent and rule-based power to manage the litigation process efficiently. By reviewing the court file and the parties' joint request, the Registrar determined that the variation was consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC, which encourages the efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes. The court exercised its discretion to align the procedural timeline with the practical realities of the case, as noted in the order:
UPON the Court reviewing the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) and the Court being satisfied that it may exercise its powers pursuant to RDC r.4.2 and Part 26 to vary the ACMO, the Production Order and the Consent Order in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
This reasoning highlights the court's preference for party-led procedural adjustments where such adjustments do not compromise the court's ability to adjudicate the matter fairly.
Which specific RDC rules and prior judicial orders were cited as the basis for the 11 October 2021 variation?
The order explicitly relied upon RDC r.4.2 and Part 26, which provide the procedural framework for the court’s case management powers. These rules allow the court to vary or revoke orders, including those made by consent, to ensure the effective management of the case. The order also referenced the following specific prior instruments:
- The Amended Case Management Order (ACMO) of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 22 June 2021.
- The Production Order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 12 September 2021.
- The Consent Order sealed by the Registrar on 4 October 2021.
How did the court utilize the cited RDC provisions to maintain procedural control over the TCD 001/2020 litigation?
The court utilized RDC r.4.2 and Part 26 as the foundational authority to maintain control over the trial timeline. By invoking these rules, the Registrar ensured that the variation was not an abandonment of the court's oversight, but rather a formal, recorded adjustment within the existing procedural framework. This approach ensures that all parties remain bound by the court's directions while providing the flexibility necessary for complex litigation involving digital assets.
What was the final disposition and the order regarding costs in this matter?
The court granted the order by consent, effectively extending the deadline for the exchange of witness statements of fact and hearsay notices to 4:00 pm on 12 October 2021. Regarding the costs of the application, the court ordered "Costs in the case," meaning that the ultimate liability for the costs incurred in this procedural step will be determined at the conclusion of the substantive litigation, typically following the final judgment. The court also granted "Liberty to apply," allowing the parties to return to the court should further procedural issues arise regarding these deadlines.
What are the practical takeaways for practitioners managing cryptocurrency disputes in the DIFC?
Practitioners must anticipate that complex technology and construction disputes, particularly those involving cryptocurrency, will require iterative case management. The Huobi OTC DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital case family serves as a primary example of how the TCD manages high-value, technical disputes through flexible, consent-based procedural adjustments.
The primary takeaway is the importance of proactive communication between parties to identify potential timeline bottlenecks early. When such bottlenecks arise, utilizing the RDC Part 26 framework to seek a consent order is the standard, efficient path. For a deeper analysis of the substantive risks involved in this case, see the editorial: Gate Mena v Tabarak Investment Capital [2022] DIFC TCD 001: The High Cost of Misjudged Cryptocurrency Custody.
Where can I read the full judgment in HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001?
The full text of the consent order is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-001-2020-huobi-otc-dmcc-v-1-tabarak-investment-capital-limited-2-mr-christian-thurner-6 or via the CDN: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-001-2020_20211011.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) r.4.2
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 26