How did the DIFC Court address the Claimant’s request to join Huobi MENA FZE in TCD 001/2020?
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and the Defendants, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited and Mr. Christian Thurner. As the proceedings progressed toward trial, the Claimant sought to expand the scope of the action by joining an additional entity, Huobi MENA FZE, as a Second Claimant. This application, heard during the Pre-Trial Review (PTR), necessitated a formal amendment to the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim to reflect the new party's involvement and the updated heads of loss.
Justice Sir Richard Field, presiding over the Technology and Construction Division (TCD), granted the application, allowing the expansion of the claimant side. This decision ensures that the legal standing of the parties aligns with the underlying commercial reality of the dispute. The court’s order explicitly authorized the structural change:
The Claimant is permitted to join Huobi MENA FZE to the proceedings as Second Claimant and to re-amend its Claim Form and its Particulars of Claim in the form attached to this Order, such amendments to take effect from the date of the Order.
Further details regarding the evolution of this case can be found in the HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Formalizing TCD jurisdiction for complex commercial disputes order.
Which judge presided over the Pre-Trial Review in TCD 001/2020 and when did the hearing take place?
The Pre-Trial Review for TCD 001/2020 was conducted before Justice Sir Richard Field of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The hearing took place over two days, on 27 October 2021 and 1 November 2021, with the resulting order issued on 18 November 2021.
What specific legal arguments did the parties advance regarding the Security for Costs Application in TCD 001/2020?
The Second Defendant, Mr. Christian Thurner, initiated a Security for Costs Application, supported by the First Defendant, Tabarak Investment Capital Limited. The Defendants argued that the Claimant’s financial position necessitated protection to ensure that any future adverse cost orders would be enforceable. In response, the Claimant, through Mr. Sultan Bin Kharsham Al Ali and Mr. Mohit Davar, offered a hybrid form of security. This included a formal undertaking regarding unencumbered properties and a significant cash payment into court. The court weighed these competing interests, balancing the Defendants' need for financial protection against the Claimant's right to pursue its amended claim.
What was the doctrinal issue regarding the redaction of documents under RDC 28.4 in this TCD dispute?
The court had to determine whether the Claimant could redact specific documents referenced in the Second Witness Statement of Peter Oliver Smith, dated 18 October 2021. The legal question centered on the application of RDC 28.4, which governs the disclosure and inspection of documents. The court evaluated whether the proposed redactions were consistent with the procedural requirements for maintaining the integrity of the evidence while protecting sensitive information. Justice Sir Richard Field ultimately permitted the redactions, provided they adhered to the specific basis set out in the witness statement.
How did Justice Sir Richard Field structure the security for costs mechanism involving property undertakings?
Justice Sir Richard Field adopted a multi-layered approach to security for costs, requiring both an equitable interest in property and liquid cash deposits. The court mandated that the individuals providing the security submit to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court specifically for the enforcement of the undertaking. This ensures that the court maintains oversight over the assets provided as security. The reasoning emphasized the necessity of ensuring that the Defendants are not left without recourse should they prevail at trial. The order specified:
The Claimant is permitted to join Huobi MENA FZE to the proceedings as Second Claimant and to re-amend its Claim Form and its Particulars of Claim in the form attached to this Order, such amendments to take effect from the date of the Order.
The court also established a clear hierarchy for enforcement, noting that if the final cost order exceeds the cash deposits, the Defendants may seek recourse against the identified properties.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural directions were applied in the TCD 001/2020 order?
The court relied heavily on RDC 28.4 to resolve the dispute over document redactions. Additionally, the order functioned as a procedural roadmap, varying the deadlines set in the Amended Case Management Order of 22 June 2021. These variations were essential to accommodate the joinder of the Second Claimant and the subsequent re-filing of pleadings. The court set strict deadlines for the filing and service of the re-amended Claim Form, the re-amended Defence, and the respective Replies, ensuring the trial timeline remained manageable.
How did the court allocate costs for the Amendment and Security for Costs applications?
The court issued specific cost orders to address the financial burden of the procedural applications. The Claimant was ordered to pay the First Defendant AED 60,000 and the Second Defendant AED 17,000 regarding the Amendment Application. Regarding the Security for Costs Application, the Claimant was ordered to pay the Second Defendant AED 65,000. The court utilized specific language to defer the payment of certain costs until the conclusion of the trial, allowing for potential set-offs. As noted in the order:
The Claimant shall pay the Second Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by its Security for Costs Application in the sum of AED 65,000. This sum shall only become payable once all questions of costs as between the Claimant and the Second Defendant have been determined following the conclusion of the trial and subject to any right of set off in favour of the Claimant.
What was the final disposition of the applications heard during the PTR?
The court granted the Claimant’s application to join Huobi MENA FZE and to re-amend its pleadings, subject to the payment of costs. Simultaneously, the court granted the Defendants' Security for Costs Application, requiring the Claimant to provide an undertaking regarding unencumbered properties and to pay a total of AED 1,300,000 into court (AED 750,000 for the First Defendant and AED 550,000 for the Second Defendant). The court also provided for the costs of the PTR, stating:
Save for the cost orders made in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 above, all other costs of the PTR shall be costs in the case.
How does this order influence future practice in the DIFC Technology and Construction Division?
This case serves as a precedent for how the TCD manages complex multi-party litigation involving cryptocurrency-related entities. By permitting the joinder of a second claimant while simultaneously imposing stringent security for costs, the court demonstrates a balanced approach to procedural fairness. Practitioners should anticipate that the TCD will continue to favor robust security measures—including property undertakings—when claimants seek to expand the scope of litigation late in the pre-trial phase. The case highlights the importance of precise cost budgeting and the potential for deferred cost payments to be linked to final trial outcomes. For further context on the procedural evolution of this case, see HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural framework for cryptocurrency litigation.
Where can I read the full judgment in HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at: 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-13 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-001-2020_20211118.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) 28.4