This consent order marks a procedural milestone in the long-running litigation between a consortium of investors and the audit firm Deloitte & Touche (M.E.), formalizing an extension of time for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings regarding costs.
What is the nature of the dispute between Nest Investments Holding Lebanon and Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) in TCD 003/2020?
The litigation involves a complex professional services dispute 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 matter concerns allegations of professional negligence and audit failure, which have been subject to extensive preliminary issue hearings.
The dispute has generated a significant volume of procedural activity, including multiple orders addressing disclosure, preliminary issues, and costs. For further background on the procedural history and the challenges faced by the claimants, 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. Readers may also refer to sibling orders in this case family, such as the Consent order regarding partial discontinuance of multi-party claims (21 April 2020), the Appeal against preliminary issues order (23 April 2020), the procedural management of cost submissions (30 April 2020), the Consent order regarding disclosure of audit reports (06 May 2020), and the Costs assessment following appeal (20 May 2020).
Which judge presided over the consent order in TCD 003/2020 within the Technology and Construction Division?
The order was issued following the prior substantive rulings of Justice Sir Richard Field, who has presided over the preliminary issues and subsequent cost-related orders in the Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts. This specific consent order was issued by Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban on 29 March 2022.
What were the positions of the parties regarding the timeline for detailed assessment proceedings?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, reached a consensus to avoid a contested application regarding the deadline for initiating cost assessments. By filing a consent order, the claimants and respondents effectively aligned their procedural interests to secure an extension of time. This approach reflects a strategic decision to manage the complex cost recovery process—arising from the Judgment dated 13 June 2021 and the Order dated 13 September 2021—without further judicial intervention or the risk of missing strict RDC deadlines.
What was the specific legal question regarding the procedural deadline that the Court had to address?
The Court was required to determine whether to grant a formal extension of time for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The central issue was whether the parties had provided sufficient justification for extending the period to 19 April 2022, thereby ensuring that the right to seek costs, as established by the previous rulings of Justice Sir Richard Field, remained preserved despite the passage of the original deadline.
How did the Court exercise its discretion to grant the extension of time?
The Court exercised its case management powers to facilitate the parties' agreement, ensuring that the procedural timeline remained consistent with the efficient administration of justice. By endorsing the consent order, the Court acknowledged the parties' mutual desire to settle the timing of the costs assessment phase. As noted in the order:
(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.
were among the parties who sought this extension to finalize their cost submissions following the earlier substantive rulings.
Which specific RDC rules and prior orders were invoked in the granting of this extension?
The order was predicated upon the prior substantive rulings of the Court, specifically the Judgment of Justice Sir Richard Field on Preliminary issues dated 13 June 2021 and the subsequent Order dated 13 September 2021. These documents established the liability for costs that necessitated the detailed assessment process. The procedural extension itself is governed by the Court’s general case management powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts, which allow for the variation of time limits by consent to ensure the fair and proportionate resolution of cost disputes.
How did the Court apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of this costs assessment?
The Court utilized the consent order mechanism to give effect to the parties' agreement, thereby minimizing the need for judicial oversight on purely procedural timelines. By adopting this approach, the Court respected the autonomy of the litigants to manage the pace of their cost recovery efforts. This is a standard application of the DIFC Courts' preference for consensual procedural arrangements, which prevents the court from having to adjudicate on minor scheduling conflicts that do not impact the substantive merits of the case.
What was the final disposition and the specific orders made regarding costs?
The Court granted the extension of time, ordering that the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings for all costs established in the Order of 13 September 2021 be extended to 4pm on 19 April 2022. Regarding the costs of the application itself, the Court made no order as to costs, meaning each party bears its own legal expenses associated with the filing of this specific consent order.
What are the practical implications for litigants managing complex cost assessments in the DIFC?
This case highlights the necessity of strictly adhering to procedural timelines for cost assessments and the utility of consent orders when those timelines prove insufficient. Practitioners must anticipate that while the DIFC Courts are willing to facilitate extensions by consent, failure to secure such an order before the expiration of a deadline can lead to the forfeiture of the right to claim costs. Litigants should ensure that all cost-related deadlines are tracked alongside substantive hearing dates to avoid the procedural pitfalls that necessitated this extension.
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-9 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-003-2020_20220329.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Nest Investments Holding Lebanon v Deloitte & Touche | [2021] DIFC TCD 003 | Foundation for cost orders |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) — General Case Management Powers