This consent order marks a procedural milestone in the long-running litigation between Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Deloitte & Touche, specifically addressing the timeline for the recovery of legal costs following earlier substantive rulings.
What is the scope of the dispute in TCD 003/2020 involving Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Deloitte & Touche?
The litigation concerns a complex multi-party claim brought by a group of 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.
, against Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl. The underlying dispute, which has generated significant procedural activity, centers on allegations of professional negligence and audit-related failures.
The case has been characterized by extensive preliminary issue hearings, including a notable judgment delivered by Justice Sir Richard Field on 13 June 2021. The current order serves as a procedural bridge, ensuring that the parties have sufficient time to finalize the quantification of costs arising from the court’s previous determinations. This order follows a series of earlier procedural steps, 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)
Which DIFC division and registrar oversaw the issuance of the 25 January 2022 consent order in TCD 003/2020?
The order was issued within the Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts. While the underlying substantive issues were previously heard by Justice Sir Richard Field, this specific procedural consent order was issued by the Registrar, Nour Hineidi, on 25 January 2022.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the extension of time for detailed assessment in TCD 003/2020?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a consensus to extend the deadline for commencing detailed assessment proceedings. 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.
, and the respondents, Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl, agreed that the original timeline set by the Order of 13 September 2021 was insufficient for the necessary preparation of cost schedules. By filing a consent order, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, demonstrating a cooperative approach to the administrative aspects of the litigation.
What was the precise legal question regarding the procedural deadline for costs assessment in TCD 003/2020?
The court was required to determine whether it should grant a formal extension of time for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The core issue was whether the parties had provided sufficient justification for an extension beyond the deadline established in the 13 September 2021 Order, and whether such an extension would prejudice the efficient administration of justice within the TCD.
How did the DIFC Court apply the principles of case management to the request for an extension in TCD 003/2020?
The court exercised its discretion under the RDC to facilitate the parties' agreement, prioritizing the orderly resolution of ancillary cost disputes. By formalizing the agreement, the court ensured that the transition to the detailed assessment phase remained within a structured, albeit extended, timeframe. The reasoning was straightforward: where parties are in agreement on procedural timelines, the court generally facilitates that agreement to promote efficiency.
Which specific RDC rules and previous orders governed the costs assessment process in TCD 003/2020?
The order specifically references the "Order of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 13 September 2021." This order served as the foundational authority for the costs entitlement. The procedural mechanism for the assessment itself is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which outlines the requirements for detailed assessment proceedings, including the filing of bills of costs and the timeline for initiating such assessments.
How did the court utilize the 13 June 2021 Judgment in the context of the 25 January 2022 order?
The 13 June 2021 Judgment on Preliminary Issues provided the substantive basis for the subsequent costs orders. The court used this judgment as the reference point for determining which costs were recoverable and which parties were liable. The 25 January 2022 order did not revisit the merits of the 13 June 2021 judgment but rather acted as an administrative enforcement mechanism to ensure that the costs awarded in the wake of that judgment could be properly quantified and assessed.
What was the final disposition and relief granted in the consent order dated 25 January 2022?
The court granted the consent order, formally extending the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings in respect of all orders for costs made in the Order dated 13 September 2021. The new deadline was set for 4pm on 7 February 2022. Regarding the costs of this specific application, the court made no order, meaning each party bore their own costs for the procedural request.
What are the wider implications for practitioners managing complex multi-party litigation in the DIFC TCD?
This case highlights the importance of proactive procedural management in high-value, multi-party disputes. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts are willing to accommodate extensions for detailed assessments where parties demonstrate a collaborative approach, provided that the request is made through a formal consent order. This avoids unnecessary judicial intervention and keeps the litigation on a predictable, albeit adjusted, track. Litigants must ensure that any such extensions are formalized well before the expiration of existing deadlines to avoid the risk of being barred from recovery under the RDC.
Where can I read the full judgment in NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2022] 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-6 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-003-2020_20220125.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Nest Investments Holding Lebanon v Deloitte & Touche | [2021] DIFC TCD 003 | Foundation for costs orders |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38 (Costs)