How did the dispute in TCD 002/2019 between DGA Project Management Services and Al Reyami Steel Construction arise regarding the High Level Report?
The litigation between DGA Project Management Services LLC (DGA) and Al Reyami Steel Construction (ARSC) concerns a construction dispute brought before the Technology and Construction Division (TCD). During the course of the proceedings, a specific evidentiary gap was identified by the Court concerning a "High Level Report" dated 17 August 2017. While the email to which this report was originally attached had been submitted, the report itself was absent from the e-bundle presented to the Court.
This omission necessitated a procedural intervention by Justice Sir Richard Field to ensure the integrity of the evidentiary record. The Court required DGA to account for the document's absence and to justify why the Court was not alerted to this deficiency prior to the hearing. The dispute at this stage is not about the merits of the construction claim, but rather the procedural fairness of introducing evidence that was available to the parties as early as 2017 but failed to make it into the formal trial bundle. This order follows a series of procedural developments in the case, including DGA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES v AL REYAMI STEEL CONSTRUCTION [2020] DIFC TCD 002 — Document production order for expired digital assets (19 November 2020).
Which judge presided over the TCD 002/2019 procedural order issued on 27 May 2021?
The order was issued by Justice Sir Richard Field, sitting in the Technology and Construction Division of the DIFC Courts. The document was formally issued by the Registrar, Nour Hineidi, on 27 May 2021 at 3:30 pm.
What were the respective positions of DGA and ARSC regarding the late admission of the High Level Report?
DGA, as the Claimant, sought to rectify the evidentiary gap by acknowledging that the High Level Report provided to ARSC on 17 August 2017 was missing from the evidence. The Court required DGA to explain the timing of their discovery of this omission and why the Court was not informed earlier. ARSC, the Defendant, was granted the right to object to the admission of this evidence. The Court noted that if the application to admit the report were granted, it would likely permit ARSC to rely on additional written submissions that had previously been refused, effectively balancing the procedural scales between the parties.
What was the specific legal question Justice Sir Richard Field had to resolve regarding the admissibility of the High Level Report?
The Court had to determine whether to grant permission for the Claimant to adduce a document that was historically available to the parties but omitted from the trial e-bundle. The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s discretion to allow late evidence under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) while maintaining the efficiency and finality of the trial process. The Court specifically questioned the Claimant on the timeline of their awareness regarding the missing document and the justification for the delay in bringing it to the Court's attention.
How did Justice Sir Richard Field structure the application process for the late admission of evidence?
Justice Sir Richard Field adopted a pragmatic approach, dispensing with the need for a formal application while imposing strict deadlines to prevent further delay. The Court mandated that DGA provide a clear explanation for the oversight. The Court’s instructions were precise:
It will be sufficient if a letter is sent to the Registry by 4.00 pm Dubai time on 30 May 2021 followed by the service of written submissions by 12 noon Dubai time on 31 May 2021.
This directive ensured that the Court could evaluate the merits of the application without the administrative burden of a full formal motion, while still holding the Claimant to a rigorous briefing schedule.
What specific procedural requirements did the Court impose on ARSC in response to the potential admission of the High Level Report?
The Court provided ARSC with a clear window to contest the admission of the evidence, ensuring the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) was upheld. The order stated:
If ARSC is minded to object to DGA’s application they must serve written submissions by 4.00 pm on 2 June 2021.
By setting this deadline, the Court ensured that the procedural dispute would not derail the broader timeline of the construction litigation, while simultaneously signaling that the admission of the report remained an "open question" subject to judicial scrutiny.
Which DIFC Court rules and procedural standards govern the admission of evidence in TCD 002/2019?
The proceedings are governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which provide the Court with broad case management powers to control the evidence presented at trial. While the order does not cite specific RDC sections, it operates under the Court's inherent jurisdiction to manage the trial bundle and ensure that all evidence is properly before the Court. The Court’s approach reflects the TCD’s emphasis on procedural rigour, as seen in DGA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES v AL REYAMI STEEL CONSTRUCTION [2021] DIFC TCD 002 — Pre-trial procedural rigour in construction disputes (25 April 2021).
What was the final disposition of the 27 May 2021 order regarding the High Level Report?
The Court did not grant the application to admit the report immediately. Instead, it issued procedural directions requiring DGA to submit a letter and written submissions by 30 and 31 May 2021, respectively. ARSC was given until 2 June 2021 to file any objections. The Court explicitly reserved its decision on whether to grant the application, noting that if it were granted, ARSC would likely be permitted to rely on previously excluded written submissions.
What are the wider implications for practitioners litigating in the DIFC Technology and Construction Division?
This order serves as a warning to practitioners regarding the necessity of meticulous e-bundle management. The TCD expects parties to verify the completeness of their evidence well before the hearing. Failure to include relevant documents—even those known to the parties for years—will not be treated lightly. Practitioners must anticipate that if they seek to introduce late evidence, they will be required to provide a detailed explanation for the delay and may face a "tit-for-tat" scenario where the opposing party is granted leave to introduce previously rejected evidence to maintain procedural parity. Future litigants should refer to DGA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES v AL REYAMI STEEL CONSTRUCTION [2021] DIFC TCD 002 — Assessment of costs following TCD judgment (07 September 2021) for the consequences of procedural failures on cost awards.
Where can I read the full judgment in DGA Project Management Services v Al Reyami Steel Construction [2021] DIFC TCD 002?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-002-2019-dga-project-management-services-llc-v-al-reyami-20210527-2 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-002-2019_20210527.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)