This consent order formalizes the revised procedural timeline for the determination of costs following the preliminary issues judgment in the long-running dispute between Nest Investments and Deloitte & Touche.
What are the specific parties involved in the TCD 003/2020 litigation against Deloitte & Touche?
The litigation, filed under case number TCD 003/2020, involves a complex multi-party structure comprising several corporate entities and individual claimants seeking redress against the defendants, Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl. The claimants include:
(2) Jordanian Expatriates Investment Holding Company (4) Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (5) Jamal Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (6) Trust Compass Insurance S.a.l.
These parties, alongside Nest Investments Holding Lebanon S.A.L., Trust International Insurance Company (Cyprus) Limited, His Excellency Sheikh Nasser Bin Ali Bin Saud Al Thani, and various members of the Abu Nahl family, are engaged in a high-stakes dispute concerning professional audit services. The complexity of the claimant group reflects the underlying corporate and investment interests at stake in this Technology and Construction Division matter.
Which judge presided over the preliminary issues that necessitated the 28 June 2021 consent order?
The procedural order issued on 28 June 2021 by Registrar Nour Hineidi follows the substantive ruling delivered by Justice Sir Richard Field. Justice Sir Richard Field presided over the Technology and Construction Division hearing that resulted in the Judgment on Preliminary Issues issued on 13 June 2021. This order serves as a administrative follow-up to that judgment, adjusting the timetable for the subsequent costs phase of the proceedings.
What were the respective positions of the claimants and defendants regarding the procedural timeline for costs?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a mutual agreement to adjust the litigation schedule following the 13 June 2021 judgment. Rather than litigating the timing of the costs submissions, the claimants and defendants opted for a consent order to manage the transition into the costs determination phase. The defendants, Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl, sought an extension to prepare their draft order and supporting submissions regarding costs, while the claimants, including:
(2) Jordanian Expatriates Investment Holding Company (4) Ghazi Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (5) Jamal Kamel Abdul Rahman Abu Nahl (6) Trust Compass Insurance S.a.l.
agreed to a reciprocal extension for their response and subsequent reply submissions. This collaborative approach reflects a pragmatic effort to manage the procedural burden following the court's preliminary findings.
What was the precise legal question the court addressed in the 28 June 2021 order?
The court was not asked to determine a substantive legal issue in this specific order, but rather to exercise its case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to formalize a revised procedural timetable. The primary issue was the adjustment of deadlines for the filing and service of costs-related documentation. The court had to ensure that the procedural requirements following Justice Sir Richard Field’s judgment were met in a manner that allowed both parties sufficient time to prepare their respective positions on the costs of the preliminary issues phase.
How did the court apply its case management discretion to resolve the scheduling dispute?
The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to manage the proceedings efficiently by endorsing the agreement reached between the parties. By formalizing the request through a consent order, the court ensured that the litigation timeline remained structured while accommodating the parties' need for additional time to finalize their submissions. The reasoning focused on the necessity of aligning the procedural calendar with the practical requirements of the parties following the 13 June 2021 judgment.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the procedural extensions granted in this matter?
The court’s authority to issue this order is derived from the RDC, which grants the Registrar and the Court broad powers to manage the litigation process. Specifically, the court utilized its power to extend time limits for the filing of documents, ensuring that the parties could comply with the court's directions regarding costs submissions. The order specifically references the directions issued on 13 June 2021, which were themselves a consequence of the Judgment on Preliminary Issues delivered by Justice Sir Richard Field on the same date.
How does the 28 June 2021 order relate to the broader procedural history of TCD 003/2020?
This order is part of a sequence of procedural management steps in the TCD 003/2020 case family. It follows several previous orders, including:
- NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — Consent order regarding partial discontinuance of multi-party claims (21 April 2020)
- NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — Appeal against preliminary issues order (23 April 2020)
- NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — procedural management of cost submissions (30 April 2020)
- NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — Consent order regarding disclosure of audit reports (06 May 2020)
- NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — Costs assessment following appeal (20 May 2020)
These orders collectively demonstrate the court's active role in managing the complex, multi-party nature of the dispute.
What was the final disposition of the 28 June 2021 order regarding costs and deadlines?
The court ordered that the deadlines for the filing and service of costs-related submissions be extended as follows: the defendants were granted until 27 June 2021 to file their draft order and supporting submissions; the claimants were granted until 7 July 2021 to file their response; and the defendants were granted until 14 July 2021 to file final submissions in reply. Crucially, the court specified that there was "No order as to costs" regarding the application for this procedural extension itself.
What are the practical implications for practitioners involved in DIFC Technology and Construction Division litigation?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts prioritize the efficient management of costs-related phases, but remain willing to accommodate reasonable extensions when parties reach a consensus. The deep editorial analysis of this case is at: Nest Investments v Deloitte [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Lebanese Law Disputes. This case highlights the importance of strictly adhering to procedural directions and the potential for costs to become a significant, separate phase of litigation that requires its own dedicated timeline and strategy.
Where can I read the full judgment in NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2021] DIFC TCD 003?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-003-2020-1-nest-investments-holding-lebanon-sl-2-jordanian-expatriates-investment-holding-company-4-ghazi-kamel-abdul-rahman or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-003-2020_20210628.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Nest Investments Holding Lebanon v Deloitte & Touche | [2021] DIFC TCD 003 | Subject of the procedural order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (as applicable to procedural management)