Skip to Content

Registrar’s Direction No 2 of 2017 – TCD Pre-Trial Review

Registrar’s Direction No 2 of 2017 – TCD Pre-Trial Review

September 17, 2017

image_pdfimage_print

Registrar’s Direction No 2 of 2017 – TCD Pre-Trial Review

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

REGISTRAR’S DIRECTION NO 2 OF 2017

Preparation for and Matters to be Considered at the TCD Pre-Trial Review

Citation

This Registrar’s Direction will come into effect on 1 October 2017. It may be cited as Registrar’s Direction 2 of 2017 — Preparation for and Matters to be Considered at the TCD Pre-Trial Review and may be abbreviated to RD 2/2017.

Preparation for and Matters to be Considered at the DIFC Courts Technology and Construction Division (TCD) Pre-Trial Review (PTR), to be read in conjunction with Part 56 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)

1.Documents and bundles

1.1 The parties must complete the TCD Pre-Trial Review Questionnaire and send it to the Registrar not less than three days before the date fixed for the PTR (RDC 56.19).

1.2 Each party should prepare a note for the PTR, which addresses:

(a) any outstanding directions or interlocutory steps still to be taken;

(b) the issues for determination at the trial;

(c) the most efficient way in which those issues might be dealt with at the trial, including all questions of timetabling of witnesses.

These notes should be provided to the Court by 4pm one clear working day before the PTR.

1.3 The parties must ensure that, for the PTR, the Case Management Bundle (RDC 26.16-26.18.) is up-to-date, together with a bundle of the evidence (factual and expert) that has been exchanged. The bundles must be made available to the Court by 4pm one clear day before the PTR.

1.4 In addition, a Judge may order the parties to provide other documents for the particular purposes of the PTR.

2. List of Issues

2.1 The parties should, if possible, provide the Judge at the PTR with an agreed up-to-date list of the main issues for the trial (including, where appropriate, a separate list of technical issues to be covered by the experts).

2.2 The list of issues should not be extensive and should focus on the key issues. It is provided as a working document to assist in the management of the trial and is not a substitute for the statements of case.

2.3 If it is not possible for the parties to agree the precise formulation of the issues, they should each provide to the Court their respective formulations of the list of main issues for the trial.

3. Timetabling and Trial Logistics

3.1The PTR will be devoted principally to a consideration of the appropriate timetable for the trial, and other logistical matters. These will commonly include:

(a) Directions in respect of oral and written openings and any necessary reading time for the Judge.

(b) Sequence of oral evidence; for example, whether all the factual evidence should be called before the expert evidence.

(c) Timetabling of oral evidence. To facilitate this exercise, the parties should, after discussing the matter and whether some evidence can be agreed, provide a draft timetable indicating which witnesses need to be cross-examined and the periods during which it is proposed that they should attend in accordance with RDC 26.75. Such timetables are working documents.

(d) The manner in which expert evidence is to be presented, for example:

(i) For the experts for all parties to be called to give concurrent evidence, colloquially referred to as “hot-tubbing” (see RDC 31.48, DIFC Courts PD 1/2013).

(ii) For one party to call all its expert evidence, followed by each party calling all of its expert evidence.

(iii) For one party to call its expert in a particular discipline, followed by the other parties calling their experts in that discipline. This process would then be repeated for the experts of all disciplines.

(iv) For one party to call its expert or experts to deal with a particular issue, followed by the other parties calling their expert or experts to deal with those issues. This process would then be repeated for all the expert issues.

(e) Whether any form of time limits should be imposed. (Since the purpose of time limits is to ensure that the costs incurred and the resources devoted to the trial are proportionate, this is for the benefit of the parties. The judge will endeavour to secure agreement to any time limits imposed.)

(f) How the Core Bundle should be prepared and what it should contain (RDC 35.39).

(g) Any directions relating to the use of electronic document management systems at trial (this is subject to agreement between the parties).

(h) Any directions relating to the use of simultaneous transcription at trial (this is subject to agreement between the parties).

(i) Whether there should be a view by the judge (i.e. an excursion by the judge to a site that bears relevance to the proceedings).

(j) The form and timing of closing submissions.

(k) Whether there is a need for any special court provision (because of the number of parties or any particular facilities required).

(l) Whether there is need for evidence by video link.

 

Mark Beer

Registrar of the DIFC Courts

Dated: 17 September 2017