This consent order formalizes a procedural extension granted by the DIFC Technology and Construction Division, allowing the parties additional time to initiate detailed assessment proceedings following previous cost orders.
What is the nature of the underlying dispute in TCD 003/2020 between Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Deloitte & Touche?
The litigation involves a complex multi-party claim brought by a group of claimants, including various investment holding companies and individual stakeholders, against Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) and Joseph El Fadl. The dispute centers on professional liability and audit-related claims, which have been subject to extensive preliminary issue hearings before the Technology and Construction Division. 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.
The case has generated significant procedural history, including multiple orders regarding disclosure, preliminary issues, and the subsequent assessment of legal costs. For further background on the procedural challenges faced by the parties in this matter, see the deep editorial analysis at: Nest Investments v Deloitte [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Lebanese Law Disputes. Related sibling orders in this case family include:
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), and NEST INVESTMENTS HOLDING LEBANON v DELOITTE & TOUCHE [2020] DIFC TCD 003 — Costs assessment following appeal (20 May 2020).
Which judge presided over the preliminary issues in TCD 003/2020 that necessitated this consent order?
The proceedings, including the judgment on preliminary issues dated 13 June 2021 and the subsequent order dated 13 September 2021, were presided over by Justice Sir Richard Field within the Technology and Construction Division of the DIFC Courts.
What were the respective positions of the parties regarding the extension of time for cost assessments?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a consensus to extend the procedural deadline for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings. Given the complexity of the litigation, which involves multiple 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.
The parties sought to avoid the necessity of a contested application by filing a consent order. This approach reflects a strategic decision to manage the administrative burden of the costs assessment process efficiently, ensuring that both the claimants and the respondents have sufficient time to prepare their detailed bills of costs and points of dispute without triggering further litigation over procedural timelines.
What was the specific legal question the court had to answer regarding the timeline for costs?
The court was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings pursuant to the RDC. The doctrinal issue centered on the court's discretion to manage its own process and facilitate the orderly resolution of costs disputes following the substantive orders made by Justice Sir Richard Field. The court had to ensure that the extension did not prejudice the parties while maintaining the integrity of the court's case management schedule.
How did the court exercise its discretion to grant the extension of time for detailed assessment?
The court exercised its inherent case management powers to approve the consent order, acknowledging the agreement reached between the parties. By formalizing the extension, the court ensured that the procedural requirements for detailed assessment were met within a revised, mutually acceptable timeframe. The reasoning was straightforward: where parties are in agreement on procedural extensions that do not undermine the court's overall management of the case, the court will typically facilitate such requests to avoid unnecessary satellite litigation.
Which RDC rules and previous orders were cited as the basis for this consent order?
The order was issued specifically in reference to the Judgment of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 13 June 2021 and the subsequent Order of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 13 September 2021. These documents established the liability for costs that necessitated the detailed assessment process. The procedural mechanism for this extension falls under the general case management powers provided to the DIFC Courts under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those governing the assessment of costs and the court's power to extend time limits.
How were the previous orders of Justice Sir Richard Field utilized in this procedural context?
The previous orders were utilized as the foundation for the current procedural step. Specifically, the Order of 13 September 2021 served as the trigger for the detailed assessment process. By referencing these specific documents, the court ensured that the extension of time was clearly linked to the specific cost liabilities previously determined, thereby preventing any ambiguity regarding which costs were subject to the new 21 February 2022 deadline.
What was the final outcome and relief granted by the Registrar on 10 February 2022?
The Registrar issued a consent order granting the requested extension. The operative part of the order states: "The period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings in respect of all orders for costs made in the Order shall be extended to 4pm on 21 February 2022." Additionally, the court ordered that there be no order as to the costs of the consent order itself, meaning each party bears its own costs for this specific procedural application.
What are the wider implications for practitioners regarding cost assessments in the Technology and Construction Division?
This case highlights the importance of proactive procedural management in high-value, multi-party disputes. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts favor the use of consent orders to manage the timeline for detailed assessments, particularly when the underlying litigation involves complex audit or professional liability issues. Litigants must anticipate that failing to adhere to court-ordered deadlines for cost assessments can lead to unnecessary procedural hurdles; therefore, seeking a timely consent order is the preferred method for managing delays.
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-8 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-003-2020_20220210.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Nest Investments v Deloitte | [2021] DIFC TCD 003 | Referenced as the source of the underlying cost orders. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (General Case Management Powers)