This consent order marks a procedural milestone in the long-running litigation between Nest Investments and Deloitte & Touche, formalizing an extension for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings following earlier cost orders.
Which parties are involved in the TCD 003/2020 dispute against Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl?
The litigation, filed under case number TCD 003/2020, involves a complex array of claimants seeking redress against the respondents, Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl. The claimants comprise a group of corporate entities and individuals, including Nest Investments Holding Lebanon S.A.L. and several other stakeholders. The specific parties listed in the proceedings 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.
The dispute centers on allegations arising from professional services provided by the respondents. The litigation has seen numerous procedural developments, including multiple consent orders regarding disclosure, cost submissions, and the management of preliminary issues. For further context on the broader litigation, see the deep editorial analysis at: Nest Investments v Deloitte [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Lebanese Law Disputes. Sibling orders in this case family include the Consent order regarding partial discontinuance of multi-party claims (21 April 2020), the Appeal against preliminary issues order (23 April 2020), and the Costs assessment following appeal (20 May 2020).
Which DIFC division and judicial authority oversaw the procedural timeline in TCD 003/2020?
The matter was managed within the Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts. The procedural history of this case, particularly regarding the underlying preliminary issues and subsequent cost orders, was overseen by Justice Sir Richard Field. The specific consent order dated 14 December 2021 was issued by the Registrar, Nour Hineidi, following the court's earlier determinations on costs.
What were the respective positions of the claimants and respondents regarding the extension of the cost assessment period?
The claimants, led by Nest Investments Holding Lebanon S.A.L., and the respondents, Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl, reached a mutual agreement to extend the procedural deadline for initiating the detailed assessment of costs. Rather than litigating the timing of these assessments, the parties opted for a consent order to manage their administrative burdens. This approach reflects a pragmatic alignment between the parties to avoid unnecessary interlocutory disputes over procedural timelines, allowing them to focus on the substantive aspects of the cost recovery process following the court's earlier rulings.
What was the specific legal question regarding the timeline for detailed assessment proceedings in TCD 003/2020?
The court was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings arising from the Order of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 13 September 2021. The legal issue was not one of substantive liability, but rather a procedural application to vary the deadline for filing the necessary documentation to initiate the assessment of costs. The court had to ensure that the extension remained consistent with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding the efficient management of litigation and the finality of court orders.
How did the DIFC Court exercise its discretion to extend the deadline for cost assessment?
The court exercised its case management powers to formalize the agreement reached between the parties. By issuing a consent order, the court acknowledged the parties' request to adjust the procedural calendar without requiring a formal hearing. The reasoning centered on the court's authority to manage its own process and facilitate the orderly resolution of ancillary matters, such as costs, following the substantive judgment on preliminary issues. The order explicitly stated:
(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.
The court's decision to grant the extension to 23 January 2022 reflects a standard judicial approach to consent applications, where the court facilitates the parties' agreed-upon timeline provided it does not prejudice the administration of justice or the court's own scheduling requirements.
Which specific DIFC statutes and procedural rules govern the assessment of costs in this matter?
The assessment of costs in the DIFC is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which outlines the procedures for the detailed assessment of costs. Specifically, RDC 38.39 provides the framework for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings. The court's authority to extend time limits is derived from RDC 4.2, which grants the court the power to extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction, or court order. These rules ensure that parties have a structured pathway to recover costs while maintaining the court's oversight over the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.
How did the court apply the precedent of the 13 September 2021 Order in the current proceedings?
The 13 September 2021 Order served as the foundational authority for the current application. The court utilized this earlier order to define the scope of the costs subject to assessment. By referencing the specific date of the previous order, the court ensured that the extension applied exclusively to the costs awarded in that specific instance, thereby preventing any ambiguity regarding which legal fees were subject to the new 23 January 2022 deadline. This approach maintains consistency with the principle of res judicata, ensuring that the court's previous determinations on liability for costs remain intact while merely adjusting the procedural window for their quantification.
What was the final disposition of the application regarding the extension of time?
The court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The primary order stipulated that the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings in respect of all orders for costs made in the Order dated 13 September 2021 was extended to 4:00 pm on 23 January 2022. Furthermore, the court made no order as to costs regarding the application itself, meaning each party bore their own legal expenses for the procedural request.
What are the practical implications for litigants managing cost assessments in the DIFC?
This case highlights the importance of proactive procedural management. Litigants should be aware that while the DIFC Courts are willing to facilitate consent-based extensions, such requests must be clearly defined by reference to existing orders to avoid procedural confusion. Practitioners must ensure that any application for an extension of time is filed well in advance of the original deadline to demonstrate compliance with the RDC. Failure to manage these timelines effectively can lead to the forfeiture of the right to claim costs or the necessity of further, costly applications to the court. For a broader discussion on the risks associated with procedural errors in this specific case, refer to the analysis at: Nest Investments v Deloitte [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Lebanese Law Disputes.
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 is available on 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-5. The CDN link for the document is: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-003-2020_20211214.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Nest Investments v Deloitte | [2021] DIFC TCD 003 | Foundation for the cost order |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 38 (Detailed Assessment of Costs)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Rule 4.2 (Court's power to extend time)