July 01, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 081/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
KITOPI CATERING SERVICES LLC
Claimant/Defendant in Counterclaim
and
MONS HOSPITALITY FZE
Defendant/Claimant in Counterclaim
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART KC
UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 26 March 2025 (the “Court Order”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-081-2024/3 dated 16 May 2025 seeking a Document Production Order (the “Claimant’s Application”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-081-2024/4 dated 16 May 2025 seeking a Document Production Order (the “Defendant’s Application”)
UPON reading the evidence set out in the Defendant’s Application
AND UPON the Claimant having failed to comply paragraph 6(a) of the Court Order
AND UPON reviewing all documents filed in support of the applications
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. It is declared that the Claimant was in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Court Order by failing to produce any documents to which it has no objection by the deadline stipulated therein.
2. It is further declared that the Claimant was in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Court Order and RDC 28.20, by failing to:
(a) carry out a reasonable search for documents in its possession, custody or control as to which no objection is made under RDC 28.20(1);
(b) produce to the Claimant all such requested documents to which no objection is made under RDC 28.20(2);
(c) provide to the Claimant information about the Claimant’s document retention policy under RDC 28.20(3);
(d) provide to the Claimant information about the nature of searches conducted under RDC 28.20(3); and
(e) provide a valid statement under RDC 28.20(4).
3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs incurred in preparing and submitting the letter to the Court dated 6 May 2025, and the costs of preparing and filing this Application, such costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
4. The Claimant shall use its best efforts to search for and produce documents to which the Court has issued a Document Production Order as set out in the Redfern Schedule to the extent only that the Court has indicated that the requests are allowed.
5. Save as set out above, the parties’ requests for further document production are refused.
6. Save as set out above, the costs of the Applications are reserved to the Trial Judge.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 1 July 2025
At: 8am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. In this case, only relatively modest sums are sought by each party. Despite the well known limitations on document production in the DIFC, each party sought very widespread document production from the other party with little regard for such limitations.
2. That each party knew and understood the limitations is apparent from the objections which each made to the other’s request. In the circumstances, it is difficult to understand what purpose the making of the vast majority of the requests served other than increasing costs.
3. I have allowed a limited number of the Defendant’s requests for the reasons set out in the Redfern schedule but refused the remainder and all of the Claimant’s requests for the reasons set out in the Redfern schedules. The Redfern schedules are appended to this Order.
4. The evidence filed with the Defendant’s Application demonstrates clear failures to comply with the Court Order. I have accordingly made appropriate declarations. It is not appropriate to make an order identifying inferences at this stage. Inferences may or may not be appropriate at trial. I also consider that there should be a costs order in relation to the letter of 6 May 2025. Save as above, the costs of this exercise will be reserved to the trial Judge.
Claim No. 081/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN:
KITOPI CATERING SERVICES LLC
-and
MONS HOSPITALITY FZ LLC
CLAIMANT’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE
1. This Request to Produce is made pursuant to RDC 28.16. The Claimant reserves the right to make such further additional requests as may be required upon an analysis of the contents of the requested documents received from the Defendant.
2. The term "Document" as used in this Request is as defined in RDC 28.1 and RDC 28.2, and means "anything in which information of any description is recorded; and ‘copy’, in relation to a document, means "anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly".
3. Further, the "definition of a document extends to electronic documents, including email and other electronic communications, word processed documents and databases. In addition to documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, the definition covers those documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and electronic documents that have been ‘deleted’. It also extends to additional information stored and associated with electronic documents known as metadata".
4. For the avoidance of doubt, unless the context of a Request to Produce (“RTP”) makes clear that a narrower type of document is sought, the Claimant considers that the term “Document” includes: emails and their attachments, letters, notes, facsimiles, agreements, spreadsheets, SMS or similar instant messages (including WhatsApp, Signal, MS Teams etc.), voicemails, memoranda, diaries, and reports in all languages and any drafts of such Documents (irrespective of whether they have been signed or not).
5. The Documents referred to in this RTP are reasonably believed to be in the custody, possession, and control of the Defendant, and are not in the possession, custody or control of the Claimant.
6. The term “Correspondence/s” shall include any form of written, electronic, or recorded communication exchanged between two or more parties, whether internal or external, and regardless of the medium used. This includes letters, facsimiles, text messages, instant messages (including WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, MS Teams, and Slack), internal memoranda, meeting notes, voice messages, and any other records of communication, whether formal or informal, and in draft or final form.
7. The term “Defendant” refers to the named party in these proceedings (Mons Hospitality FZ LLC), and shall also include any of its affiliated, parent, or subsidiary companies, as well as its directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, contractors, legal representatives, and any other person or entity acting on its behalf or under its direction or control, and whose documents are in its possession, custody and control.
8. Unless otherwise stated, defined terms are adopted from the Parties’ pleadings.
9. The pleadings are given the following abbreviations: Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (“POC”), Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim (“DCC”), Defendant’s “Particulars of Claim” (“DPOC”), Claimant’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (“RDCC”).
10. Pursuant to RDC 28.16, the Claimant hereby requests:
| Reference to the Claimants’ Standard Production (if relevant) | Description of document(s) sought | How Document(s) sought are relevant and material to the outcome of the case | Document(s) not in requesting party’s control and reasons | Document(s) in responding parties’ control and reasons | Objections | Replies to Objection | Mons’ Rejoinder | Court’s Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | C.5 | Correspondence internal to the Defendant in relation to cleaning arrangements at the Mons Kitchen and/or its facilities during COP 28. Date Range: 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 |
On 26 November 2023, the following WhatsApp exchange took place between employees of the Claimant and of the Defendant: “26/11/2023, 14:46 - Mahmoud Mons: Wivon will clean this 26/11/2023, 14:47 - Huan: Servicom will handle it 26/11/2023, 14:47 - A6f Kings: Operations will assign someone ASAP (file attached).” The attached file contained a video showing meal boxes, and other items left in crates on the floor of the Mons Kitchen. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant relied on it for the cleaning of its contractual areas and improperly food hygiene and disposal. See DPOC ¶25.6. The Claimant asserts that it followed the instructions provided by the Defendant with respect to the disposal of kitchen items. See RDCC ¶31. The documents requested are relevant and material to the issues in dispute. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control. Correspondence internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control. Internal correspondence to the Defendant. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces documents (i.e. in the folder “Request 1 ”) This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement in relation to matters in dispute between the parties. It was Kitopi as the operator that was responsible for cleaning arrangements at Oasis Food Hall. In this regard, Kitopi references “C.5” which is a document Kitopi produced in standard production and that document relates to “Aireen Redondo” who is stated to be a “Personin-Charge” from 24 April 2023 to 23 April 2028. It is unclear if that person was at Oasis Food Hall during the entirety of the COP28 Event. Kitopi as the business operator was responsible for operating Oasis Food Hall and all the cleaning arrangements. Kitopi’s “Business Operation Permit” is produced. This request does not relate to a narrow and specific category of documents under RDC 28.17(2) given the “Date Range” is stated to be for an entire year from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023, which is a long period of time outside the COP28 Event (a global event which involved a massive catering operation including many third parties) which was over only a few weeks. Aside from not being relevant and material, this request is not compliant with the rule for making a request to produce as explained. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7) because it seeks an expansive disclosure for virtually the whole COP28 event over a long period of time. Kitopi should already know what the cleaning arrangements were at Oasis Food Hall because it weas responsible for those arrangements. |
The Defendant claims that the Claimant was responsible for Oasis Food Hall Kitchen, and that it was only “given food hygiene obligations”. While the Claimant has provided evidence demonstrating that the kitchen mess in question may have been created not by its own employees, this does not prove the process with the Claimant. This request is to documents which will clarify whether Mons sent notice, approval or updated instructions for the cleaning process. Additionally, the Defendant has produced an invoice evidencing stewarding services contracted by Mons from an external service provider. This clearly suggests that Mons had appointed its own staff or subcontractors to manage cleaning duties. It is to be reasonably expected that other documents exist which are responsive to the request, including instructions issued to cleaning staff or subcontractors, which is consistent with the case advanced by the Claimant. The Business Operation Permit provided by the Defendant is irrelevant, and does not relate to the kitchen in dispute, and does not pertain to the Claimant’s operations at the Defendant’s facility. The permit produced relates to a food truck, which is an entirely different outlet operated by the Claimant. In fact, the Claimant had five distinct outlets at the Expo event, each subject to different operational arrangements. The fine issued by Dubai Municipality was issued to the license/permit of the Defendant “Mons Hospitality FZE” meaning that the business permit for that location must have belonged to the Defendant. The request to produce is maintained. In the interests of addressing any residual concern about reasonableness and proportionality, the Claimant is willing to specify a date range of six months: 30 June 2023 to 31 December 2023. |
Compared to Kitopi’s production of limited documents against Mons’ requests to produce without even labelling what documents its production related to, Mons and various members of its team (including CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Even if Mons undertakes any further search, it is reasonably unlikely it would be available to find any further documents. Mons undertaking any further searches would offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). Kitopi should already know what the cleaning arrangements were at Oasis Food Hall because it was responsible for those arrangements. Stewards were present in the COP28 Event, but Kitopi is misconceived to allege that Kitopi was therefore not responsible for the cleaning operations at Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi was responsible for the entirety of the cleaning and other operations at Oasis Food Hall in respect of the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement. Kitopi had to comply with all appliable legal and regulatory standards. Notwithstanding the position above and following the further misconceived comments from Kitopi, Mons has gone above and beyond and further searched for and found a further email between Mons’ parent company and Al Wafa (cleaning company) dated between 5 September 2023 to 9 October 2023 which confirms that the cleaning operations by stewards did not even relate to Rising Flavour. Kitopi’s request should be rejected. |
Request refused. The request does not relate to a narrow and specific class of documents but instead seeks wide class of documents over a year. The documents sought are, at best, of peripheral relevance to the issue as to the responsibility for cleaning as between the parties during the COP 28 event |
| 2. | Documents which record the arrangements between the Defendant and the Expo Authority, in relation to the Defendant’s operation of premises within the Expo site, including lease agreements for the Defendant’s outlets at the event, and the lease agreements signed between COP and the Defendant for Oasis Hall and Za’abeel Kitchen. | The Defendant asserts that the Claimant acted in breach of its contractual obligations due to it having sole responsibility for controlling the locations where the meal boxes being assembled, and ensuring that those facilities met relevant regulatory standards. | The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to arrangements between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to arrangements between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding that this request is not relevant or material to this dispute and does not relate to the specific kitchen subject to the dispute between the parties under the Agreement, Mons nonetheless produced Kitopi’s “BUSINESS OPERATION PERMIT” which enabled Kitopi to operate in Expo City Dubai and Mons’ various agreements with Expo City (as agreed between this parties, this is redacted as necessary 2). There was no specific lease agreement but there were commercial agreements between Mons and Expo and these are produced as mentioned above. | The documents produced by the Defendant are incomplete: (i) insofar as they contain unexplained redactions including the annex showing the Defendant’s proposal and its scope of work; (ii) Appendix B relating to personnel, equipment and facilities has not been included. Full and unredacted copies of documentation should be provided; (iii) the Defendant has only produced the agreement relating to the Blue Zone area and failed to produce the agreement for the Green Zone area, which is where Oasis Food Hall is located. | Mons has already searched for and produced relevant documents. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort, cost searching for and producing documents against this request. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any such further documents to produce against this request. The documents produced include detailed contractual agreements with Expo City which are protected on grounds of commercial and technical confidentiality under RDC 28.28(5). Despite this, Mons did an extremely light redaction for commercial and technically confidential information, personal (e.g. passport information), commercial, financial and market sensitive information which are also a serious concern because Kitopi operates in the same business as Mons. Kitopi agreed that Mons can redact such documents in its email on 4 April 2025 (timed at 00:14). The green zone documents are also disclosed as available (e.g. Variation Order No. 2 under EC-GEN-033). Appendix B (which is short) is also included in the Services Agreement (which has been disclosed) and there is nothing further relating to Appendix B. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), especially as it is likely nothing further would be found. This request should be rejected. |
Request refused. The documents sought are not narrow and specific. The Court is not satisfied that inappropriate reactions to the Business Operations Permit have been made. | |
| 3. | Documents and correspondences related to any inspections or safety checks conducted on the Defendant by any relevant authority, including Dubai Municipality or the Expo Authority. |
The documents requested would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the COP 28 event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to correspondence between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to correspondence between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons produces documents responsive to this request insofar as they relate to inspections by the Dubai Municipality in respect of the COP28 Event as defined in the Agreement between the parties at Oasis Food Hall. Documents beyond the arrangements between the parties is not relevant and material to the dispute between the parties. From Kitopi’s standard production (e.g. doc C-15 and C-16 which relate to Dubai Municipality reports) Kitopi (“afif.reda@kitopi.com”) received these reports so Kitopi should have all such documents. Mons is not, however, aware of inspections or food safety checks conducted “by any [other] relevant authority” (but Kitopi should refer to various other requests. e.g. request 41 below for which Mons has made further productions). This request, insofar as it seeks documents from unspecified authorities is overly broad, vague and uncertain. It is unclear which authorities are intended to be captured by the request or how Mons would reasonably search for any such documents, particularly given that Kitopi, not Mons, was responsible for the operations at the Oasis Food Hall. Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents |
The Claimant maintains its request. The Defendant provided the Expo summary listing of all inspections conducted from 4 December to 6 December, which shows that nine fines were issued to the Defendant during this period. The Claimant seeks access to the underlying inspection reports and related correspondence, which are critical to determining whether the Defendant’s own compliance failures contributed to its alleged losses (e.g., reputational damage, loss of future contracts, rebranding costs, etc.), which it is seeking to recover from the Claimant Additionally, the Defendant’s employee Faida has been involved in similar communications, sometimes acting as a representative of the Defendant and at other times as an Expo employee. The Defendant produced emails involving Faida’s communications in her capacity as Expo employee in relation to other Kitopi outlets. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Mons has access to relevant inspection records and correspondence, whether through Faida, or their own food watch account. The scope of the request is precise, targeting specific inspection reports (food safety inspections) and related communications from relevant authorities such as Dubai Municipality and the Expo Authority. The request is both relevant and material and proportionate. The Defendant’s objections based on burden and proportionality are without merit given the nature and accessibility of these records by the Defendant. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant is content to limit the relevant authorities to Dubai Municipality, the Expo Authority, and the ECD Food Safety Team. |
Production was already made against this request. Mons’ otherwise reiterates its objection. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any such further documents to produce against this request. In respect of Ms. Faida Sabouneh, Mons does not have access to her Expo City email account and cannot gain access to the same. Accordingly, such documents are not within the control of Mons. Additionally, any documents beyond the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to the dispute and searching for them would be in violation of considerations of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality of the parties under RDC 28.28(7). |
Request refused. Adequate documents have been produced. The documents sought are not narrow and specific. The justification that the documents would “provide more context” is insufficient to justify further production. | |
| 4. | B.3 | The Inspection Report for Alif Café – in respect of the inspection conducted on 4 December 2023 Green Zone – License number 00034, and Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. | The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is plainly not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement for the COP8 Event as defined under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Alif Café operation was an entirely independent operation. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. It is irrelevant whether this inspection falls within the contractually defined “COP28 Event”, because the Defendant’s claims in this dispute go far beyond Oasis Food Hall. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection to the previous requests above in respect of proportionality and the searches already undertaken. In any event, Mons submits that this request is not relevant and material to the specific dispute between the parties given the arrangements under the Agreement. As COP28 was a major global event, both parties had other operations with third parties (i.e. as even noted in Kitopi’s Redfern Request 1 above, Kitopi alleges to have “had five distinct outlets at the Expo event, each subject to different operational arrangements”). In this regard, it would not be appropriate to disproportionately enlarge this dispute to other arrangements, which involve other third parties. If Kitopi wants to go into the detail of other projects and operations and this is granted by the Tribunal (which it should not be), the court should also ask Kitopi to produce all similar documents for all its operations in other projects it was involved in during COP28 in the interests of principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). Kitopi’s request should be rejected. |
Request refused. The request is, on its face, fishing. The documents sought are irrelevant to this dispute. |
| 5. | B.3 | The Inspection Report for the Defendant’s catering provision in Palestine pavilion - in respect of the inspection conducted on 4 December 2023, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. | The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Palestine pavilion operation was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. During the event, the Defendant relocated the Claimant to different locations, including the “Palestine Pavilion”, which lacked basic kitchen infrastructure (no chiller, no oven). This supports the Claimant’s position that its role was limited to assembling and reheating meal boxes, not storage or full kitchen operations, and that it operated in accordance with instructions issued by the Defendant. Moreover, the Expo summary report states that this was a major fine, and one of the comments is “sushi temperature is at 18 degrees”, evidencing systemic problems in the Defendant’s own handling of food safety across its facilities. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need forrebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. | Request refused As for 4. |
| 6. | B.3 | The Inspection Report for Floozie Cookies Cart – in respect of an inspection conducted on 4 December 2023 - Al Forsan Crescent North, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. |
The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Floozie Cookies Cart was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. | Request refused. As for 4. |
| 7. | B.3 | The Inspection Report for Floozie Café – in respect of an inspection conducted on 5 December 2023- Al Forsan Crescent North Mobility 7 – Blue Zone, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. |
The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. |
The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. |
This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Floozie Cafe was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. | Request refused. As for 4. |
| 8. | B.3 | The Inspection Report for Bread Ahead Restaurant – in respect of an inspection conducted on 5 December 2023 - Al Mobility 7 – Blue Zone, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. |
The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Bread Ahead Restaurant was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. | Request refused. As for 4. |
| 9. | B.3 | The Inspection Report conducted on Al Wasl Plaza cafe -The Defendant Hospitality on 6 December 2023, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. | The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Al Wasl Plaza Cafe was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. | Request refused. As for 4. |
| 10. | B.3 | The Inspection Report conducted on Q Café Blue Zone dated 6 December 2023, and all Correspondence or Documents related to this inspection, whether shared internally between the Defendant’s representatives or between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority. |
The Defendant provided a document issued by the COP authority which lists all inspections conducted by Dubai Municipality from 4 – 6 December 2023. 8 fines were issued to the Defendant’s outlets. A copy of the inspection reports would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. |
The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to communications between the Defendant and third parties. |
This request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. The Q Café was an entirely independent operation, not related to the dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Inspection Report[s]” and “all Correspondence or Documents” regarding an entirely unrelated food operation imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value such documents might have in this dispute. This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that the operations of those sites were inspected and fines issued. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant. The Defendant’s own standard production includes the Expo summary of Inspections document listing all inspections conducted from 4 to 6 December 2023, which shows that 9 fines were issued to various outlets operated by the Defendant. Mons asserts reputational damage, loss of future business opportunities (including the COP29 contract), the need for rebranding, issuance of vouchers, and customer complaints — all of which are alleged to have been caused by the Claimant’s breaches. The Claimant is therefore entitled to challenge this narrative by examining whether the Defendant’s own operational failures, were in fact the cause of these alleged damages. The Defendant’s objection based on burden and proportionality is exaggerated. The inspection report and related correspondence are, identifiable documents that should be readily accessible through the Defendant’s Food watch Dubai Municipality account or internal emails from Faida. Producing such documents does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. |
Mons repeats its objection and its statement in respect of Kitopi’s request no. 4. |
Request refused. As for 4. |
| 11. | Documents related to the Defendant’s maintenance arrangements for its outlets and premises within the Dubai Expo site at COP 28. | The Defendant asserts that the Claimant acted in breach of its contractual obligation by failing to monitor hygiene, and the chiller performance at the Mons Kitchen, notwithstanding that the chiller was inside the Defendant’s facility, and the Defendant was using the chiller for its own operations during the event. The documents requested will show what, if any, checks the Defendant carried out with respect to its own facilities, including chiller temperatures, at other facilities that it operated and controlled across the Dubai Expo site. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces an email (with attachments) between Mons’ personnel and Expo City Dubai dated 21 November 2023 with subject line “Additional Remedial Works – FH1 Walk-in Chiller”. See also items produced against request 41. Other than the above, this request for all “maintenance arrangements for its outlets and premises” within the whole Dubai Expo site (a global event which involved a massive catering operation including many third parties) is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1) as all other outlets do not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement in relation to matters in dispute between the parties. The other outlets and premises were an entirely independent operation including with third parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “maintenance arrangements for its outlets and premises” is not only vague but it is an entirely unrelated to the parties’ relationship under the Agreement and imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value of the documents sought. Complying with such an expansive request would require significant expenditure of time and human resources (if any such documents even exist). This request also offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Claimant is willing to limit its request to maintenance arrangements specifically covering the Rising Flavor (Oasis Food Hall) location. The Defendant claims that Rising Flavor location was being operated by the Claimant, and the Defendant did not use and was not aware of any issues related to the chiller. The Defendant produced an email titled “Additional Remedial Works – FH1 Walk-in Chiller”, evidencing maintenance activities at the Rising Flavor (Oasis Food Hall) location. This email, sent by Sandy Flores (TGP employee) to Sana Kouchad (Expo employee), confirms remedial works were requested for the walk-in chiller and refers to an email approval and quotation. Moreover, the email chain is incomplete. It does not show the Expo Authority’s reply. The attachments referenced (approvals, quotations) have not been disclosed. This missing information is critical in assessing the Defendant’s operational role and responsibility for the facilities it controlled. The Claimant is not involved in the communication, or aware of this issue as the only reason the Claimant is present at that location is to only reheat and assemble the boxes. Therefore, the Claimant requests all the maintenance related documents for the area covering the Oasis Food Hall including the attachments in the above mentioned email, the quotation for the works needed, the arrangement between “MCFT” and the Defendant and the agreement with Expo addressing this arrangement (Green Zone area). The documents requested are narrow, specific, relate to a single facility, and go to a core issue in dispute as to whether any failings identified during inspections related to the Claimant, or the Defendant. |
Production was already made against this request, which included an email which contained further attachments (including a PDF document and a separate email chain). Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any such further documents to produce against this request. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). Kitopi should already know the maintenance arrangements at Oasis Food Fall because it was responsible for it. |
Request refused. Further searches are not justified given the limited relevance of the documents sought and those already produced. | |
| 12. | Documents related to refunds issued by the Defendant in connection with its operations at the COP 28 event, including refunds for services provided directly by the Defendant as well as those related to services rendered on its behalf by third parties other than the Claimant. | The Defendant claims losses that are alleged to have been incurred as a consequence of the Claimant’s breaches of contract, namely future losses of business (e.g. the exclusive catering contract for COP 29). The Documents requested are relevant to provide the context in which the Defendant issued refunds, and has been subjected to criticisms during the COP 28 event, other than in connection with services provided by the Claimant. The documents requested are relevant to issues of causation and quantum of loss. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is largely duplicative of other requests, such as request no. 17 below. Mons’ has already produced documents related to refunds in its standard production (see folder titled “H. Vouchers and Refunds” with 25 separate items in that folder, including an excel spreadsheet titled “1. Undated – Voucher Redemption Tracker”). For ease of reference, those documents are produced again along with further documents relating to vouchers. Additionally, Mons in its standard production provided two emails to consumers that mention that vouchers were given as compensation for Kitopi’s failed deliveries, i.e. one for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) (see Mons’ standard production folder titled “C. Correspondence” and document number 14) and another for National Grid (see Mons’ standard production folder titled “C. Correspondence” and document numbered 15), which are also added to the production for ease of reference. Any and all other documents relating to refunds in other operations during COP28 which is not related to the specific COP28 Event between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1), it would cause an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3), and would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). |
Mons initially provided documents claiming that refunds were issued due to the Claimant’s services, only to later realize that the majority of these refunds did not relate to the Claimant at all. This demonstrates why full disclosure is essential to assess the reasons for the Defendant’s failure, and to critically analyse the losses it apportions to the Claimant, as opposed to either other providers or the Defendant itself. The Defendant also produced an Excel spreadsheet titled “Voucher Redemption Tracker”, claiming that vouchers worth AED 432,877 were provided to clients. However, Mons failed to provide any supporting documents explaining which orders these vouchers related to, whether they were redeemed, or the communications surrounding their issuance. Additionally, Mons has produced refund slips that are either unrelated to the services provided by the Claimant or do not specify which services they refer to, as there are no linked communications or order slips. Providing only a refund slip, without context, is insufficient for the Claimant, or the Court, to assess what it relates to. OPEC orders slips are not provided. It mentions catering services. Mons provided various catering services. In any event, the existence of refunds issued in connection with other providers is plainly relevant to the Defendant’s broader claims for loss of future contracts, including COP 29, since it places refunds issued with respect to orders placed with the Claimant in their proper context. The request is specific and proportionate under RDC 28.17(2), targeting documents essential to determining causation and quantum. The Defendant’s observations concerning duplication are misguided, and fail to distinguish between evidence related to refunds (i.e. Request 12) and the issuance of vouchers (i.e. Request 17). |
Kitopi’s reply is misguided. Mons made a very large production against this request, which included at least 40 items (including a spreadsheet, emails and other documents). Mons’ production just against this request is virtually the same number of documents as Kitopi’s entire production against Mons’ requests to produce which is telling. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), and it is not clear if any further documents exist. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 13. | B.1 | Documents related to the Food Safety Spot Check Report conducted on 5 December by the Expo authority: (i) shared internally to the Defendant (i.e. any Communications relating to the Spot Checks); and (ii) exchanged between the Defendant and any relevant authority including Dubai Municipality or Expo authority (i.e. responses to any queries or criticisms raised by those authorities). | The Documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the matters arising from the food safety spot check related to breaches by the Claimant, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, or the conduct of other third party suppliers. The Spot Check was conducted on 5 December. On that date, the Mons Kitchen was being operated by the Defendant, as the Claimant was not allowed to assemble meal boxes from there. In addition, the report includes a moldy item that was a product of the Defendant (Pomegranate), not the Claimant, which was placed inside the chiller. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | This is a broad request that is largely duplicative of other requests, nonetheless, Mons produces an email chain (with attachments) dated 5 to 6 December 2023 (including follow-on emails from an earlier Dubai Municipality email dated 5 December 2023) and other materials. Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any such further documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The request is maintained. The documents sought are plainly relevant, identifiable, reasonable in scope, and proportionate to search for and produce. The Defendant’s offer to provide a single email chain is insufficient. The Defendant has provided email communications from Expo City Dubai (ECD) concerning minor violations at other Kitopi-operated outlets (Kava, Biryani Pot). These productions show that such searches are neither time-consuming nor unduly burdensome . The documents requested are relevant for the following reasons: Items belonging to the Defendant (pomegranates) were found stored in the chiller at Rising Flavor location, directly contradicting Mons’ assertion that it was not using the facility. On 5 December, the Claimant was not allowed to operate from the location. However, the Spot Check indicates that employees were present at the site. This is a narrow request, addressing a specific inspection on a specific date. |
Mons already made a production against this request which included many items, including emails containing relevant attachments, concerning the safety checks. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), and it is not clear if any further documents exist, especially as the experts conduct checks and issue a report in short order without much back-and- forth communications. The mouldy pomegranates are Kitopi’s responsibility as the party responsible for operating Oasis Food Hall and, in any event, were items forming part of Kitopi’s own meal products which were to be supplied (e.g. “Pomegranate Meat Pie”). Kitopi should be aware of the meal products it was required to supply and deliver as part of its arrangement between the parties. Kitopi’s requests for further searches and documents should therefore be rejected. |
Request refused. As for 11. |
| 14. | Correspondence between the Defendant and the Expo Authority relating to complaints raised regarding the Defendant’s operations during COP 28, the issuance of refunds, food safety issues, and the termination of any agreements between the organizers of Dubai Expo and the Defendant. | The requested Documents would provide more context to the violations the Defendant committed during its operation in the event. The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | This is an extremely broad request, and it is duplicative of items in various requests (e.g. request 3 and 13, et al.), nonetheless, Mons produces emails (which may contain attachments) regarding its correspondence with Expo. Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any such further documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The request is not broad. In circumstances where the Defendant is asserting that its loss of reputation was caused by the Claimant, it should not be difficult for it to find communications (which on the Defendant’s analysis would be limited in number) with the Expo Authority relating to complaints in respect of its operations. On that analysis, the request is extremely narrow. If, on the other hand, there are numerous communications with the Expo Authority in relation to complaints about the Defendant, the relevance and materiality of those communications becomes obvious. The limited documents produced by the Defendant are either redacted, incomplete, or unrelated to the scope of the request. Mons has provided a redacted document which it claims lists meal box orders from 8 December to the last day of the event (12 December). However, two columns are redacted without explanation, making it impossible to verify which orders are covered, or whether they are even related to the Claimant’s services. No order confirmation slips or related refund documents have been provided to those orders. Mons also produced an email from the ECD (Expo City Dubai) department, dated 2 December, addressed to Faida (this time, to her TGP email). However, the email does not even specify which location was being inspected. This document is not responsive to the request, which specifically seeks correspondence relating to complaints, refunds, food safety issues, and termination of agreements. The Claimant maintains its request. |
Mons already made a production with respect to its communications with Expo. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Kitopi’s additional requests for “issuance of refunds”, “food safety issues” and “termination of any agreements” is duplicative of various other requests which Mons has produced documents against. Further, the additional requests are overly broad and are not focused in violation of the requirements of Taaleem v National Bonds ¶ 2 (“…requests to produce have to be focused”). A cocktail of items in a request to produce in this way is not valid and should be rejected. In respect of the redacted document, there is only one document redacted (which is a small part of an attachment to an email) and the redacted part is the individual names (first redacted column) and email addresses of various people (second redacted column). Kitopi should not have any concern regarding redaction of such personal information as it had agreed such redactions were necessary in this dispute in its email on 4 April 2025 (timed at 00:14). Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), and it is not clear if any further documents exist. Kitopi’s requests for further searches and documents should therefore be rejected. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 15. | Correspondence and Documents listing any other services providers, similar to the Claimant, engaged by the Defendant during the COP event, along with copies of vouchers or refunds issued in connection to their services. | The Defendant makes wide ranging assertions that as a consequence of the Claimant’s breaches of contract, that it has lost an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, lost further business opportunities including contracts with UAE based entities, and that it has had to “rebrand and relaunch its business, including changing its name”: DPOC ¶32. In order to establish causation, the Defendant will need to demonstrate that any of the matters it identifies were actually caused by the Claimant’s breaches, and not wider failings in the service levels provided by the Defendant or its service providers. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding the below, insofar as this request relates to the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement, this request is largely duplicative of various other requests (see e.g. request 12 and production folder “Request 12” and request 17 with production folder “Request 17” with documents included in both of those folders) and Mons previously produced “vouchers and refunds” in respect of the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement and produces further documents. This request relating to “any other services providers” especially for the entirety of the COP28 event (a global event which involved a massive catering operation including many third parties) is plainly not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. Kitopi’s request is a fishing expedition and must be rejected. This request for all “Correspondence and Documents” relating to “any other services providers…engaged by the Defendant during the COP event” is entirely unrelated to this dispute and imposes an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3). Aside from being completely unrelated to this dispute, the request is overly broad and imprecise, and it is not proportionate to any probative value of the documents sought. Complying with such an expansive request would require significant expenditure of time, cost and human resources. Additionally, this request offends principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7). It seeks expansive disclosure that is disproportionate to any likely relevance or materiality, thereby placing an unreasonable and unequal burden on Mons. |
The Defendant has failed to accurately identify the issues in dispute in these proceedings. In circumstances where the Defendant makes wide ranging assertions concerning loss of reputation, loss of contracts, and other substantial damages arising from the conduct of the Claimant, it is relevant and material that the Defendant utilised numerous other vendors at the COP 28 Event, and that there were complaints and refunds related to those services. That is relevant to questions of (i) liability, in identifying whether systemic issues were associated with individual vendors or the Defendant; and (ii) causation and quantum, and in particular whether the losses alleged were caused by the acts or omissions of the Claimant as opposed to the Defendant itself, or a third party. The majority of the amounts in the refund slips produced by the Defendant are not related to the Claimant’s services. This indicates that refunds were frequently issued for the Defendant failures in addition to other service providers. The Defendant has claimed that the “catering portal” was closed, allegedly due to Kitopi’s performance. Yet, the catering portal also included services unrelated to the Claimant, such as buffet services and alcohol offerings. The Defendant’s license does not permit the service of alcohol, yet refunds linked to alcohol were issued. This is directly relevant to the issues of causation, responsibility, and quantum. The request is limited to the Defendant’s own service providers engaged at COP28 and refunds or vouchers issued for their services. |
Mons maintains its objection. Mons has already produced considerable documentation involving its “vouchers or refunds” in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement. Kitopi’s generic response in respect of “Correspondence and Documents” with “any other service providers” is overly broad and not focused in violation of Taaleem v National Bonds ¶ 2 (“…requests to produce have to be focused”). Any materials concerning other arrangements during the COP28 event is entirely irrelevant and immaterial to this dispute and would relate to a wholly different matter. Kitopi’s request adds nothing further and is a fishing expedition. Its request should therefore be rejected. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 16. | Correspondence and Documents related to the closure of the Defendant’s portal including the full set of communications whether internal or with Dubai Expo. | The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the Claimant’s breaches of contract, as opposed to the Defendant’s own conduct, caused some of the losses claimed (e.g. losses of revenue during COP 28, award of future contracts, rebranding, issuance of vouchers, complaints etc.) | The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces documents against this request. Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any such further documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The Defendant claimed that its portal was closed. The Defendant’s production so far is inadequate. The Claimant seeks the full set of Correspondence and Documents regarding the portal closure. This includes Mons’ internal discussions, communications with Expo, and documents that explain the decision-making process, reasons for the closure, and responsibility attribution. The Defendant provided 4 emails. 3 of them are not even related to the scope of this request. | Mons already made a production with respect to its communications with Expo. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents against this request. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), and it is not clear if any further documents exist. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 17. | Correspondence and Documents related to the issuance and distribution of the vouchers by the Defendant including the list of customers receiving the vouchers, communications indicating that the vouchers were issued as compensation for the Claimant’s services with the order confirmation slips related to those vouchers, documents and communications showing how the vouchers were distributed, documents proving that those vouchers were redeemed. | The documents requested are relevant to the Defendant’s assertions that the vouchers issued were related to the Claimant’s services rather than being compensation for the Defendant’s failure to provide its other services. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | This request is duplicative of other requests, such as request no. 12 above, but Mons has searched for and produces documents (which includes documents from Mons’ standard disclosure). Despite this request, Mons’ had already produced documents related to refunds in its standard production dated 4 April 2025 (see folder titled “H. Vouchers and Refunds” with 25 separate items in that folder, including an excel spreadsheet titled “1. Undated – Voucher Redemption Tracker”). For ease of reference, those documents are produced again along with further documents relating to vouchers. Additionally, Mons in its standard production provided two emails to consumers that mention that vouchers were given as compensation for Kitopi’s failed deliveries, i.e. one for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC ) (see Mons’ standard production folder titled “C. Correspondence” and document number 14) and another for National Grid (see Mons’ standard production folder titled “C. Correspondence” and document numbered 15), which are also added to the production. Any other “Correspondence and Documents” (including “list of customers receiving the vouchers”) documents relating to refunds in other operations during COP28 which is not related to the specific COP28 Event between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1), it would cause an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3), and offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality under RDC 28.28(7). |
The Defendant’s observations concerning duplication are misguided, and fail to distinguish between evidence related to refunds (i.e. Request 12) and the issuance of vouchers (i.e. Request 17). This request specifically concerns vouchers, not refunds. The Claimant seeks correspondence and documents relating to the issuance and distribution of vouchers by the Defendant, including: The list of customers who received vouchers Communications indicating vouchers were issued due to Claimant’s services, and the amount of the voucher provided Order confirmation slips linked to those vouchers Documents showing redemption of those vouchers The Defendant also produced an Excel spreadsheet titled “Voucher Redemption Tracker”, claiming that vouchers worth AED 432,877 were provided to clients. However, Mons failed to provide any supporting documents explaining which orders these vouchers related to, whether they were redeemed, or the communications surrounding their issuance. The spreadsheet provided merely asserts that vouchers were issued, rather than evidences it. Additionally, Mons has produced refund slips that are either unrelated to the services provided by the Claimant or do not specify which services they refer to, as there are no linked communications or order slips. Providing only a refund slip, without context, is insufficient. It should be a simple exercise for the Defendant to produce: (a) A comprehensive list of refunds related to Kitopi; |
Mons had already made a very large production against this request, which included at least 37 items (including a spreadsheet titled “…Voucher Redemption Tracker”), emails and other documents). Mons’ production just against this request is virtually the same as Kitopi’s entire production against Mons’ requests to produce. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons undertaking any further searches would offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality as set out in RDC 28.28(7), and it is not clear if any further documents exist. Kitopi should rely on these documents. Kitopi’s requests for further searches and documents should therefore be rejected. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 18. | Correspondence and Documents in relation to any complaints or legal proceedings arising out of the COP 28 event, whether filed by or against the Defendant. | The Defendant makes wide ranging assertions that as a consequence of the Claimant’s breaches of contract, it has lost an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, issued refund and vouchers as compensation related to the Claimant’s services, and that it has had to “rebrand and relaunch its business, including changing its name”: DPOC ¶32. In the premises, the Defendant must produce copies of all documents related to any legal proceedings arising out of the COP event, which will give the full picture as to the levels of service it provided, and to prevent double recovery for the Defendant from other services providers. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons is not aware of any legal proceedings filed by or against it arising out of the COP28 Event. Although there are no legal proceedings filed by or against Mons, this request is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1). This request does not relate to the specific commercial arrangement for the COP8 Event as defined under the Agreement regarding matters in dispute between the parties. And any “complaints” regarding the COP28 Event to the extent relevant to the arrangements between the parties under the Agreement is covered under various other requests, such as request nos. 14, 16 and 35. Mons has already produced documents on complaints regarding the COP28 Event as defined in respect of the arrangements between the parties. Any other “Correspondence and Documents” documents relating to any complaints and refunds in other operations during COP28 (global event which involved a massive catering operation including many third parties) which is not related to the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1), it would cause an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3), and offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality under RDC 28.28(7). Complying with such an expansive request would require significant expenditure of time and human resources. |
The request is maintained. The Defendant’s response is pointedly specific in stating that no legal proceedings have been “filed” against Mons. The requested documents should include not only Mons Hospitality but also its parent company (TGP). The Claimant understands that Mons Hospitality FZ LLC was incorporated specifically for the Expo event and that key arrangements were likely entered into by TGP. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has already disclosed documents originating from TGP International and has the requisite possession, custody or control of those documents: Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd v Lancer Property Asset Management Limited [2021] EWHC 849 (Ch) at [46(iv)] Further, legal proceedings should include any pre litigation steps taken by or against the Defendant i.e legal notices. |
Mons has already confirmed that Mons is not aware of any proceedings being filed by or against it in respect of the COP28 Event. Although TGP International is not a party to these proceedings and Kitopi’s request is invalid, Mons confirms that it is also not aware of any proceedings being filed by or against it in respect of the COP28 Event. Mons otherwise repeats its response/objection. Kitopi’s request is redundant and should be rejected. |
Request refused. The documents sought are of peripheral relevance at best and Mons has confirmed it is not aware of any legal proceedings. | |
| 19. | C.7 | Documents related to order placed by Marcoms orders, including order/s placed by Marcoms with the Defendant, and the complete email chains with all attachments, and the order confirmation slips for orders 1572, 1576, 1580, 1583, and 1585, which demonstrate that they relate to orders placed with the Claimant |
Order #1334 was scheduled for delivery on 30 November, prior to the termination of the Agreement. Its relevance to the Defendant’s case is unclear. The order documents will demonstrate whether these orders relate to the Claimant, or the facts and matters pleaded by the Defendant. The written instructions will assist in identifying the reasons behind any undelivered order, or its connection to the Defendant’s pleaded case. Prior to termination of the agreement, the Claimant fulfilled orders based on the Defendant’s instructions, however, there were instances where the Defendant failed to notify the Claimant on time or received the orders late. In certain cases, the Defendant also requested the Claimant to reallocate meal boxes originally intended for other recipients to ensure the fulfillment of specific priority orders. The Defendant provided, in its standard production, two separate email threads regarding this matter—the first initiated on 1 December, and the second on 8 December. Additionally, the order confirmation slips are relevant, as the refunded amount (33,730) differs from the amount stated in order 1334 associated with the meal boxes (5,250). To the extent the Defendant asserts that the items in its standard production are relevant to its case, the further documents requested should be disclosed. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces documents including orders 1572, 1576, 1580, 1583, and 1585. As Kitopi has referenced document “C.7” (an email chain between Mons, COP28 and Marcoms) which was included in Mons’ standard production in the folder titled “C. Correspondence”, Mons had made standard disclosure regarding the Marcoms orders. Additionally, Mons in its standard production also included documents relating to this request in folder titled “D. Financial Documents”, namely document no. 9 (an invoice dated 25 November 2023 for AED 7,480) and document no. 21 which is an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of orders (see sheet titled “ORDERS LIST REFERNCE 59-A” [sic]), as well as disclosures in the folder titled “H. Vouchers and Refunds” including document no. 6 (a WIO payment receipt for AED 33,730 as referenced by Kitopi), and document no. 12 (an email between Mons and Marcoms). Mons produces those again. As Kitopi knows or should know, orders were to be placed through the COP online portal so there are limited emails and other communications with end consumers. Kitopi notes that as order no. 1334 is dated 25 November 2023 and predates termination, its “relevance…is unclear”. Mons is misconceived because Kitopi was failing to deliver on its obligations prior to termination, which ultimately led to termination of the Agreement (as accepted by Kitopi). Finally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The customer sent an email on 1 December requesting to amend 10 orders scheduled for delivery after 7 December. Each order originally included 50 meal boxes, but the customer asked to reduce this to 20 meal boxes per order. Order 1334 was scheduled for delivery on 30 November (before the termination) and includes items not related to the Claimant. The Defendant refunded an amount of AED 33,000, while the total value of items related to the Claimant (before the requested amendments) amounts to AED 36,750. In the same email, the customer referred to 11 orders in total. However, the Defendant only produced confirmation slips for 5 orders, one of which is Order 1334 (which contains items not related to the Claimant). The Defendant has not provided confirmation slips for the remaining 6 orders. Given these discrepancies between the refunded amount and the actual orders, the Claimant requests production of the remaining documents: (i) the full correspondence related to the amendments and refunds;
These documents are necessary to identify which specific orders the refunds were applied to. Furthermore, the email trail provided does not include the Defendant’s reply, making it impossible to verify the communication and confirm the facts. The remaining requested documents are relevant to the issues of liability, quantum, and mitigation of loss.(ii) the confirmation slips for all 11 orders mentioned in the customer’s email; (iii) any updated confirmation slips reflecting amended quantities. |
Mons has already searched for and produced the specific documents requested including orders 1572, 1576, 1580, 1583, and 1585 as well as various other documents including a detailed spreadsheet. Kitopi is abusing the request to produce process through expansive and growing requests to produce. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Besides what has been produced, Mons has nothing further to produce against this request and otherwise repeats its objections. |
Request refused. Fishing and/or irrelevant. |
| 20. | C.15 | Documents related to National Grid orders, including Correspondence related to the placement of National Grid order/s by the Defendant the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and the refund transfer slips | The Defendant has disclosed an email relation to Order 1568 by National Grid, which appears to form part of the Defendant’s assessment of loss. The Claimant seeks the confirmation slip for order 1568 to identify whether this order, or any other orders made by National Grid, relates to the Claimant or other services provided by the Defendant or other suppliers, as the email at C.15 does not specify the order items. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces documents. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The Claimant withdraws the request based on the Documents produced by the Defendant. Aspects of the request which relate to complaints, and refunds issued to National Grids, are maintained insofar as they relate to other requests set out in this schedule. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “withdraws” this request in light of Mons’ search and production of responsive documents. Mons does not understand Kitopi’s new remarks regarding “[a]spects of the request” which are outside the scope of Kitopi’s own request and relates to an entirely new request in violation of disclosure rules, including RDC 28.17. In any event, Mons has already conducted an extensive search and does not believe it has anything further to produce against this request. In any event, to the extent Kitopi requests further documents, Mons repeats its objection. |
Request refused insofar as it is maintained which it does not appear to be. |
| 21. | C.17 | Documents related to MGTC orders, including, Correspondence related to the placement of MGTC order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments i.e excel sheets referenced in the email, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips | The email does not provide context as to whether the order relates to the Claimant or other services provided by the Defendant or third parties. The full email thread is necessary, as the apology from the Defendant’s employee appears to be a response to a complaint or refund request. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces documents. Mons in its standard production included documents relating to this request in folder titled “D. Financial Documents”, namely document no. 21 which is an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of orders (see sheet titled “ORDERS LIST REFERNCE 59-A” [sic]) which contains references to the MGTC orders and copies of bank payment refunds made to MGTC. Finally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on |
The Defendant has not provided any order details, order confirmation slips related to this refund. The request is maintained. | Mons has searched for and produced documents including email chains, order and payment receipts. Mons does not believe it has anything further to produce against this request and repeats its objection. Kitopi should know that customers placed orders via a portal and the documents produced captures the required information for the relevant orders relating to MGTC. Kitopi’s further request should be rejected. |
Request refused. Documents sought irrelevant and not justified. |
| 22. | C.18 | Documents related to UNDP orders (i.e. orders 1839, 2251, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2258, 2259, 2261) including Correspondence related to the placement of UNDP order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips |
The email does not provide context whether this order relates to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces documents (including the requested invoices with nos. 1839, 2251, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2258, 2259, 2261), along with documents from standard disclosure. Mons in its standard production included documents relating to this request in folder titled “D. Financial Documents”, namely document no. 21 which is an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of orders (see sheet titled “ORDERS LIST REFERNCE 59-A” [sic]) which contains references to UNDP orders. Finally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The email chains includes a complaint about non- delivered buffet service (not related to Kitopi). The customer then requested refunds for the below 5 orders (which don’t seem to be related to Kitopi e.g. in references to alcohol): 1. 1053 - we didn't received any beverages for this gold morning coffee package 2. 1276 - Bronze buffet lunch and non alcoholic 3. 1141 - Afternoon coffee break Silver package 4. 1142 - Bronze canape and non alcoholic package 5.1206 - Lunch meal package Bronze In relation to the other orders: Order 1839 is not related to Kitopi services (amount is AED 9510). Orders 2251, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2258, 2259, 2261 are related to Kitopi. The Defendant has only provided 4 screenshot, each showing refund of 1700 for orders 2251,2256,2258,2259. The Claimant requests the documents proving refunds for the Claimant remaining orders, including order details and confirmation slips. Additionally, the Claimant requests all refunds related to this customer as it is clear from the emails that the customer was specifically complaining about the Defendant’s other services (not related to Kitopi) and the refund related to those services. This would provide the context of the Defendant’s operational failure. |
Mons has already searched for and produced the specific orders 1839, 2251, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2258, 2259, 2261 as well as various other documents including two spreadsheets. Kitopi is abusing the request to produce process through new and growing requests to produce in violation of disclosure rules in RDC 28 (such as RDC 28.17). Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. That said, order 1839 related to service recovery relating to Kitopi’s failure to deliver products and Kitopi should know what products belong to it instead of using words such as “don’t seem to be related”). Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
Request refused. Any further production would be disproportionate and/or unnecessary. |
| 23. | C.19 | Documents related to Global Center orders (i.e. orders (1646, 1810, 1812), including Correspondence related to the placement of Global Center order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips | The email does not provide context whether this order relates to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces documents (including the requested invoices with nos. 1646, 1810 and 1812). Mons in its standard production included documents relating to this request in folder titled “D. Financial Documents”, namely document no. 21 which is an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of orders (see sheet titled “ORDERS LIST REFERNCE 59-A” [sic]) which contains references to the Global Centre for Climate Mobility orders. Finally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The 3 orders are related to Kitopi and in the amount of AED 7,770. The refund slip is not provided and the Claimant maintains its request to carry out a search for the same. | Mons has already searched for and produced the specific orders 1646, 1810, 1812 as well as various other documents including two spreadsheets. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 24. | H.8 | Documents related to Beyond Oil and Gas (“BOGA”) orders (i.e. Orders 1919, 2018, 2021), including Correspondence related to the placement of BOGA order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips |
The email does not provide context whether this order relates to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. In particular, it is noted that some of the orders appear to relate to alcohol packages (i.e. services not provided by the Claimant). BOGA asked for a full refund for orders 2021 and 2018, each in the amount of AED 1750, and to be compensated AED 5,000 for the difference between what was provided and what was ordered. However, The Defendant provided transfer slip in the amount of AED 22,747 – considerably than the requested refund. The documents requested are relevant to liability, quantum, and mitigation of loss. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. |
The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. |
Mons has searched for and produces documents (including the requested invoices with nos. 1919, 2018 and 2021). Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The documents provided by the Defendant show that Order 1919 relates to alcohol services in the amount of AED 23,300. Order 2018 and Order 2021 are related to Kitopi’s services, each with a value of only AED 1,750. Despite this, the Defendant issued refunds of AED 22,589 on 26 December and AED 22,747 on 18 December, totalling AED 45,336. Additionally, the email states that there is a transfer done on 2 December. The Defendant failed to provide the requested documents. The remaining documents requested are relevant to liability, quantum, and mitigation of loss, particularly where the majority of the quantum of the refunds issued do not appear to relate to the Claimant. |
Mons has already searched for and produced the specific orders 1919, 2018, 2021 as well as various other documents including two spreadsheets. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 25. | H.9 | Documents related to CAF orders, including Correspondence related to the placement of CAF order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips | The email does not provide context whether the other order relates to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The 2 orders were scheduled for delivery, prior to the termination of the Agreement. The written instructions are important as they provide context behind any undelivered order. Before the termination of the agreement, the Claimant was fulfilling orders based on the Defendant’s directions; however, there were instances where the Defendant failed to notify the Claimant on time or received the orders late,. In certain cases, the Defendant also requested the Claimant to reallocate meal boxes originally intended for other recipients to ensure the fulfillment of specific priority orders. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces some documents (in addition to the standard disclosure documents). Mons in its standard production included documents relating to this request in folder titled “D. Financial Documents”, namely document no. 21 which is an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of orders (see sheet titled “ORDERS LIST REFERNCE 59-A” [sic]) which contains references to the CAF orders and copies of bank payment refunds made to CAF. Finally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The request is maintained. The email provided by the Defendant, states that the customer requesting refund for 16 items, 2 of them may be related to Kitopi, but it is difficult to verify. Order details (order confirmation slips) have not been provided, making it impossible to verify which services the refunds relate to. The email correspondence produced by the Defendant shows that items unrelated to Kitopi were included. The Defendant has not provided the requested documents, which are important to verify which services are related to Kitopi and which are not. This is particularly important as the Defendant has already produced multiple refund slips that, upon review, were found to be unrelated to Kitopi’s services. |
Mons has already searched for and produced various documents including two spreadsheets. Following the further comments from Kitopi, Mons has undertaken an additional search and produces further order documents in line with the previously disclosed materials. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 26. | H.13 | Documents related to NOW PARTNER orders (i.e orders 1209, 1210, 1912, 2240), including Correspondence related to the placement of Global Academy Foundation NOW PARTNER order/s by the Defendant, the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips |
The email does not provide context whether the other orders relate to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces several documents. Invoice 2240 relates to Kitopi. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The request is maintained. The Defendant has only produced 4 confirmation slips, all of which are not related to the Claimant except oneorder in the amount AED 2800. The refunded amount by the Defendant is 31,677 while the Claimant’s order value is AED 2800. The significant difference between the refund amount and the value of Kitopi’s orders indicates that a large portion of the refunded amount relates to services not provided by Kitopi. The remaining Documents, Correspondence related to complaints, refunds and vouchers requested are relevant to liability, quantum, and mitigation of loss. |
Mons has already searched for and produced the specific orders 1209, 1210, 1912, 2240 as well as various other documents including two spreadsheets. Mons has also clarified that order 2240 relates to Kitopi as disclosed. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 27. | H.14 | Documents related to PRO VEG orders, including Correspondence related to PRO VEG order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips | The email does not provide context whether the other orders relate to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces several documents. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
Order 1894 and Order 1895 are related to Kitopi’s services, each valued at AED 3,000, and were scheduled for delivery on 6 December and 4 December, respectively. Despite this, the Defendant issued a total refund of AED 32,902. The significant difference between the refund amount and the value of Kitopi’s orders indicates that a large portion of the refunded amount relates to services not provided by Kitopi. The remaining documents requested are relevant to liability, quantum, and mitigation of loss. |
Mons has already searched for and produced documents. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Following the further comments from Kitopi, Mons has undertaken an additional search and produces further order documents in line with the previously disclosed materials. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 28. | H.15 | Documents related to SwissRe orders, including Correspondence related to Swiss Pavilion order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips. | The email thread is not complete and the email does not provide context whether there are any other orders related to the Claimant. In particular, reference to an afternoon coffee break service was not a service provided by the Claimant. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons confirms the SwissRe orders do not relate to Kitopi and so no productions are made here. | The Claimant withdraws the request, on the Defendants admission that it is not entitled to recover any losses relating to orders placed with respect to SwissRe. Aspects of the request which relate to complaints, and refunds issued to SwissRe, are maintained insofar as they relate to other requests set out above. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “withdraws” this request in light of Mons’ response. Mons does not understand Kitopi’s new remarks regarding “[a]spects of the request” which are outside the scope of Kitopi’s own request and relate to an entirely new request in violation of disclosure rules, including RDC 28.17. Kitopi’s new request for unrelated documents to this claim would not be relevant and material to the dispute and its outcome. Additionally, anything beyond the searches and response provided would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unlikely to even exist. |
Request refused insofar as it is maintained which it does not appear to be. |
| 29. | H.16 | Documents related to the PICO orders (i.e orders 153, 1276, 1141, 1142, 126 ), including Correspondence related to PICO order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips. |
The email thread is not complete and the email does not provide context whether there are any other orders related to the Claimant. In particular, reference to a buffet service which was not provided by the Claimant The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. |
The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the third parties. Defendant and third parties. |
Mons has searched for and produces several documents (including the requested invoices with nos. 153, 1276, 1141, 1142, 126). Mons confirms these do not relate to Kitopi. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The Claimant withdraws the request, on the Defendants admission that it is not entitled to recover any losses relating to orders placed with respect to PICO. Aspects of the request which relate to complaints, and refunds issued to PICO, are maintained insofar as they relate to other requests set out above. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “withdraws” this request in light of Mons’ search and production of documents including orders 153, 1276, 1141, 1142, 126 as well as other documents. Kitopi’s new request for unrelated documents to this claim would not be relevant and material to the dispute and its outcome. Mons does not understand Kitopi’s new remarks regarding “[a]spects of the request” which are outside the scope of Kitopi’s own request and relates to an entirely new request in violation of disclosure rules, including RDC 28.17. In any event, Mons has already conducted an extensive search and does not believe it has anything further to produce against this request. In any event, to the extent Kitopi requests further documents by way of a new request which is not permitted, Mons repeats its objection. |
Request refused insofar as it is maintained which it does not appear to be. |
| 30. | H.24 | Documents related to Hingorani orders, including Correspondence related to Hingorani order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips | The email does not provide context whether the other orders relate to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. Additionally, the order was scheduled for delivery, prior to the termination of the Agreement. The written instructions are important as they provide context behind any undelivered order. Before the termination of the agreement, the Claimant was fulfilling orders based on the Defendant’s directions; however, there were instances where the Defendant failed to notify the Claimant on time or received the orders late,. In certain cases, the Defendant also requested the Claimant to reallocate meal boxes originally intended for other recipients to ensure the fulfillment of specific priority orders. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces several documents (along with a document from standard disclosure). Mons confirms that it is not pursuing this claim as such orders do not relate to Kitopi. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The Claimant withdraws the request, on the Defendants admission that it is not entitled to recover any losses relating to orders placed with respect to Hinorani. Aspects of the request which relate to complaints, and refunds issued to Hingorani, are maintained insofar as they relate to other requests set out above. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “withdraws” this request in light of Mons’ search and production of documents. Kitopi’s new request for unrelated documents to this claim would not be relevant and material to the dispute and its outcome. Mons does not understand Kitopi’s new remarks regarding “[a]spects of the request” which are outside the scope of Kitopi’s own request and relates to an entirely new request in violation of disclosure rules, including RDC 28.17. In any event, Mons has already conducted an extensive search and does not reasonably believe it has anything further to produce against this request. In any event, to the extent Kitopi requests further documents by way of a new request which is not permitted, Mons repeats its objection. |
As for 29. |
| 31. | H.20 | Documents related to Vo events orders (i.e orders 1158,1211, 1085,1087,1088,1090,1092), including Correspondence related to Vo Events order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips. |
The email does not provide context whether the other orders relate to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email except for one order that is related to Alcohol items which were not provided by the Claimant. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces several documents (including the requested orders with nos. 1158, 1211, 1085, 1087, 1088, 1090 and 1092) along with a document from standard disclosure. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
Orders 1085, 1087, 1088, 1089, and 1092 are linked to Kitopi, each valued at AED 1,300. In contrast, Order 1158 (AED 12,750) and Order 1211 (AED 900) are not related to Kitopi. The refund amount issued is lower than the total value of all undelivered orders. Full disclosure is necessary to assess liability and quantum, particularly given the Defendant’s broader claims of reputational harm and refunds allegedly caused by the Claimant especially that the Defendant provided on its own standard production documents showing that the majority of refunds were unrelated to Kitopi’s services The request is specific, proportionate, and material. |
Mons has already searched for and produced the specific orders 1158,1211, 1085,1087,1088,1090,1092 as well as various other documents including a spreadsheet. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. That said, orders 1158 and 1211 are related to service recovery relating to Kitopi’s failure to deliver products. The email chain between Mons and Vo dated 7 December 2023-1 April 2024 (which is already produced) shows that the orders relate to Kitopi’s products. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request and, in this regard, repeats its objection. |
Request refused. As for 22. |
| 32. | H.22 | Documents related to WHO orders, including Correspondence related to WHO order/s by the Defendant , the complete email chain with all attachments, the order confirmation slips, and all refund transfer slips. |
The email does not provide context whether the other orders relate to the Claimant or other services provided by The Defendant since the details of the orders are not stated in the email or the invoices. The documents requested are relevant to liability and quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. |
The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant, or are between the Defendant and third parties. |
Mons has searched for and produces documents along with documents from standard disclosure which were previously produced and relate to WHO orders. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The total refund amount by the Defendant is AED 38,070 while Kitopi’s related orders are in the amount of 6300. The Claimant request to produce the documents related to the remaining amount of refund and provide any other refund slips. This request is relevant to determine how the refunds has been allocated. The request is specific, proportionate, and material. |
Mons has already searched for and produced a large number of documents, including an excel spreadsheet and email communications. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. That said, there are orders related to service recovery relating to Kitopi’s failure to deliver products. Mons does not reasonably believe it has any further documents to produce against this request, and in this regard repeats its objection. |
|
| 33. | Correspondence between the Defendant and customers, or Correspondence internal to the Defendant, which refer to a customer becoming ill and/or hospitalised due to the consumption of unfit food. | At paragraph 24.3 of DPOC, the Defendant asserts that “a person had to visit hotel and/or was hospitalised due to consuming the Defendant’s unfit food”. The Defendant has provided no documentation supporting that assertion, and must therefore be required to produce the documents in its possession, custody and control, evidencing the same. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences internal to the Defendant, and between the Defendant and its customers. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences internal to the Defendant, and between the Defendant and its customers. | This was based on a verbal communication and will be dealt with during the witness evidence and testimony phase of the case. However, Mons requested in its request to produce no. 13 from Kitopi “[a]ny Documents (including internal Communications) which cover any person feeling sick or having to visit hospital after consumption of Kitopi’s food Products at the Event”. | In circumstances where verbal communications were made, by a customer, in relation to hospitalisation after food consumption, it is to be reasonably presumed that those matters will have been reported, and discussed, internally, in order that they be investigated. Given the seriousness of the allegation being made, the existence (or not) of such internal communications is relevant to the veracity of the Defendant’s assertions. The request is maintained. The Defendant should be required to search and produce any contemporaneous internal documents in relation to these alleged reports. |
Mons has already searched for and does not have any documents to produce against this request, but as noted Mons expects to deal with this in witness evidence. It is not unreasonable for a person to have felt unwell if Kitopi supplied and kept contaminated food products. Kitopi is equally under an obligation to search for and produce documents in this regard, including as it confirmed that it will “carry out a reasonable search for responsive documents…” against Mons request no. 13 (“Any Documents (including internal Communications) which cover any person feeling sick or having to visit hospital after consumption of Kitopi’s food Products at the Event”). It is currently unclear if Kitopi is in possession of any such documents, communications or notes regarding this matter (e.g. in an internal communication). |
Request refused. There is no basis to suggest that further searches will produce documents. | |
| 34. | E.3 | Documents or Correspondences to which the “undated-photo(1) of mould on food (supplied by Kitopi)” and undated-photo(2) of mould on food (supplied by Kitopi)” were attached. | At item E.3 of its standard production, the Defendant attaches two photos which are alleged to show mould on food. The metadata for those documents indicates a “created” date of 11 April 2025. No context has been provided explaining: (i) the dates on which the photos were taken; (ii) how they came into the Defendant’s possession; (iii) what the photos are said to depict; (iv) on what basis it is said that the food was supplied by the Claimant; or (v) who took the photo. As it stands, the Claimant is unable to ascertain the veracity of the photograph, when it was taken, whether the food was suppled by the Claimant, whether the date it was taken was, in fact, a date on which the food was actually suppled by the Defendant (as opposed to any items spoiling days after delivery), and whether the photographs are relevant, at all, to this case. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences internal to the Defendant, or with third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences internal to the Defendant, or with third parties. | This request is redundant because the email attaching this document was previously disclosed in Mons’ standard production (see folder titled “C. Correspondence” and document number 8 therein). Mons nonetheless produces an email from Victoria Burn (Manager-Catering & Accommodation) of COP28 to Faida Sabouneh (copying others) dated 4 December 2023 (timed at 18:29). Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made already would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any such further documents which are unclear to even exist. |
Victoria Burn sent an email to Faida (simultaneously TGP and Expo employee) stated that: “I am checking to understand the location it was delivered to and if it was from today …. Please can you investigate this and share a report.” The Defendant did not share the report, the details of the incident, investigation. The request is specific, and material to the dispute between the parties. |
Kitopi’s request is redundant as Mons had produced the relevant email attaching the photographs in standard production, and Mons produced it again for ease of reference. To the extent Kitopi seeks anything further, Mons’ objection is repeated. In any event, Mons has produced considerable documents, communications and reports against Kitopi’s request no. 41 below (i.e. around 30 documents and emails, some of which contain further attachments). One document includes an email from Stephanie Cherfane (Protocol Food Consultancy) to Ms. Faida Sabouneh (and others) dated 6 December 2023 attaching a “Food Safety Spot Check Report”, which was prepared after the cited email by Kitopi. Kitopi’s request should be rejected. |
Request refused. The documents sought have been produced. |
| 35. | Copies of all complaints received from customers during COP 28, in respect of services provided by all food and beverage vendors, including the Defendant itself. | The Defendant makes wide ranging assertions that as a consequence of the Claimant’s breaches of contract, it has lost an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, lost further business opportunities including contracts with UAE based entities, and that it has had to “rebrand and relaunch its business,including changing its name”: DPOC ¶32. In order to establish causation, the Defendant will need to demonstrate that any of the matters it identifies were actually caused by the Claimant’s breaches, and not wider failings in the service levels provided by the Defendant. In the premises, the Defendant must produce copies of all complaints received in respect of its service provision during COP 28, which will give the full picture as to the levels of service it provided. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences of complaints sent to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to Correspondences of complaints sent to the Defendant. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons has searched for and produces documents along with some documents from standard disclosure which were previously produced. Mons had already produced a number of complaints in its standard disclosure (which it produces again) along with some further documents related to complaints it received regarding the COP28 Event under the Agreement in relation to arrangements between the parties. Any other documents relating to any complaints in other operations during COP28 (global event which involved a massive catering operation including many third parties) which is not related to the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to this dispute under RDC 28.28(1), it would put an unreasonable burden on Mons under RDC 28.28(3), and offend principles of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness and equality under RDC 28.28(7). Complying with such an expansive request would require significant expenditure of time and human resources and it is unclear if such documents even exist. |
The request is reasonable and proportionate. It relates to a key issue in the counterclaim, namely whether asserted losses (e.g. loss of the COP 29 contract) had any relationship to acts or omissions of the Claimant, or whether there were wider complaints of the Defendant’s performance of its obligations to third parties at COP 28. Further, the documents requested will show whether there were broader systemic issues arising on the Defendant’s part, which has caused complaints to have been received which were not caused by individual vendors at all. Copies of complaints, and the subsequent investigation into any such complaints, are plainly material to pleaded issues between the Parties on liability, causation and quantum. The request is not duplicative, and seeks documents falling outside the scope of the requests set out above which relate to specific vendors or facilities. |
Mons has already searched for and produced documents against this request which is not denied by Kitopi. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request, which is not denied by Kitopi. Despite all of Mons’ efforts and production, Kitopi is seeking continued and further documents which are themselves outside the scope of Kitopi’s own request and relates to an entirely new request in violation of disclosure rules, including RDC 28.17. In any event, to the extent Kitopi requests further documents by way of a new request which is not permitted, Mons repeats its objection and underscores that any documents not related to the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement is not relevant and material to this dispute. Both parties were involved in other catering operations during the global COP28 event and, to the extent the court decides to grant this order which it should not do so for all the abovementioned reasons, the court should also order Kitopi to produce all complaints against it during the entirety of the COP28 event. Accordingly, the Court should reject this request. |
Request refused. There is no reason to believe that further searches will produce further documents. | |
| 36. | Copies of internal investigation documents, and reported outcomes of those investigations, for complaints received in respect of services provided by all food and beverage vendors, including the Defendant itself. | The paragraph immediately above is repeated. | The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | This request is largely duplicative of other requests, such as request nos. 13 and 14 above, nonetheless, Mons has searched for and produces documents along with documents from standard disclosure which were previously produced. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the productions made here and across the other requests would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The request is reasonable and proportionate. It relates to a key issue in the counterclaim, namely whether asserted losses (e.g. loss of the COP 29 contract) had any relationship to acts or omissions of the Claimant, or whether there were wider complaints of the Defendant’s performance of its obligations to third parties at COP 28. Further, the documents requested will show whether there were broader systemic issues arising on the Defendant’s part, which has caused complaints to have been received which were not caused by individual vendors at all. Copies of complaints, and the subsequent investigation into any such complaints, are plainly material to pleaded issues between the Parties on liability, causation and quantum. The request is not duplicative, and seeks documents falling outside the scope of the requests set out above which relate to specific vendors or facilities. |
Mons has already searched for and produced documents against this request which is not denied by Kitopi. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request. Mons produces a few further publicly available results of complaints against Kitopi’s services. To the extent that further or continued production is required, Mons repeats its response and objections as well as its rejoinder response to request 35 above, mutatis mutandis. |
Request refused. As for 35. | |
| 37. | Documents between the Defendant and the organisers of COP 29 which relate to a proposed exclusive catering contract in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November 2024. This RTP includes copies of any invitation to tender, tenders or proposals in respect of any exclusive catering contract, informal Correspondences between the Defendant and organisers of COP 29 in respect of the Defendant’s service provision for that event, documents evidencing negotiations concerning a contract, and any Correspondences which show the reasons why no such contract was awarded to the Defendant. |
At DPOC ¶32.4, the Defendant asserts that as a consequence of the Defendant’s breaches it lost an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, which was due to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November 2024. To establish causation, the Defendant will either need to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that it would have been awarded an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, or that there was a real and substantial chance that it might have. Blind assertion of a possibility that a contract might have been awarded is insufficient, and as such the Defendant must be required to produce documents which evidence any discussions or pre- contractual negotiations they had with respect to a COP 29 contract, including the revenue that would have been generated from that contract, which is relevant to its case on quantum. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents between the Defendant and a third party. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents between the Defendant and a third party. | Notwithstanding the below, Mons produces documents and communications regarding Mons and the COP29 opportunity in Baku, Azerbaijan (as redacted for commercial and technical confidentiality). Other than the abovementioned productions, Kitopi’s expansive request is not for a narrow and specific document or category of documents, and it would involve Kitopi undertaking a fishing expedition beyond the reasonable disclosure already made here. Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the productions made here and across the other requests would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents. |
The Defendant asserts that it lost a contract for COP 29 as a consequence of the Claimant’s breaches of contract. The Defendant has put the relevance of the documents requested into issue, and it must be required to search for and produce documents which are responsive to the Request, which are unredacted. In circumstances where the nature of the communications is a bid for, and loss of, a contract carrying a particular value, commercial and technical confidentiality is not an acceptable justification for redaction. The Request is maintained and should be ordered. It is genuinely surprising that the Defendant has not acceded to the request. |
Mons’ production just against this request forms almost a third of Kitopi’s production against Mons’ requests to produce which were themselves marred with errors, duplication and production of mostly irrelevant documents. Mons and various members of its team (including its CEO) has already expended considerable time, effort and cost searching for and producing documents and communications against this request, which is not denied by Kitopi. To the extent that further or continued production is required, Mons repeats its response and objections. In respect of Kitopi’s points on redaction, only one document titled “Advisory Proposal…COP29”is minimally redacted for the price sensitive information. That document is also protected on grounds of commercial and technical confidentiality under RDC 28.28(5). Despite this, Mons did an extremely light redaction for commercial, financial and market sensitive information which are also a concern here because Kitopi operates in the same business. The parties doing redaction where it was necessary was also agreed by Kitopi in its email on 4 April 2025 (timed at 00:14). Kitopi’s request should be rejected. |
Request refused. No further production is justified. | |
| 38. | Documents showing that the Defendant was licensed and/or had active business operations in Azerbaijan. | At DPOC ¶32.4, the Defendant asserts that as a consequence of the Defendant’s breaches it lost an exclusive catering contract for COP 29, which was due to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November 2024. The practicability of the Defendant being in a position to perform an exclusive catering contract for COP 29 is highly likely to be informed by whether, amongst other things, it was licensed to operate in Azerbaijan, whether it had any active operations in the region (e.g. employees or other ongoing projects). The documents requested are relevant to causation and loss. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | This request is redundant because Mons and its parent company conduct business across the world and it does not need a license in every location it operates and such licence is not always required as Mons can jointly work with other local entities, as a consultant or through other commercially viable way as appropriate in each case. TGP International, the parent company of Mons, has offered catering in more than 8 major international events and in over 150 projects over 15 countries, including for events across the Middle East (including UAE and Qatar), Egypt, Lebanon Morocco, Iraq, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Rwanda, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, et al. And Mr. Simon Wright, the CEO of Mons and TGP International, is known to play “a pivotal role in shaping some of the region’s most prominent and innovative hospitality projects”4 . Anything beyond the search already undertaken and the productions made here and across the other requests would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very expensive and disproportionate to undertake such an expansive search for any such documents. |
The Defendant has not carried out a search or disclosed documents, but simply appears to make assertions concerning its international capabilities which are unevidenced. Unless the Defendant formally admits that it is not licensed, and does not have active business operations in Azerbaijan, the request is maintained and should be granted. |
Mons repeats its objection. The information that Mons has operations in many jurisdictions is publicly available information. Kitopi can simply do an online search and find this information and Mons has provided a link in its objection. Kitopi’s attempts to make Mons produce documents against this request is absurd and should be rejected. | Request refused. Irrelevant and disproportionate. | |
| 39. | G | Documents relating to the Defendant’s decision to rebrand and relaunch, and the associated costs incurred in any rebranding. | At DPOC ¶32.5 the Defendant asserts that it has had to “rebrand and relaunch its business, including changing its name and rebranding relevant materials”. In its standard production, the Defendant appears to have disclosed a range of irrelevant invoices in respect of that issues, including costs that were incurred prior to COP 28 (i.e. using existing branding) and invoices for cling film. The only relevant document disclosed is a quotation from “bobble Digital” setting out a “very-top level quote for a digital advertising for a new business launch” which TGP International stated it was “pulling together for our internal team for future projects”. Those documents do not demonstrate: (i) that a rebranding or relaunch exercise has actually taken place; and (ii) that the quote was requested for reasons connected with this dispute, given that its stated purpose was for future projects. The Defendant has not, therefore, disclosed any documents relating to its decision to rebrand, how that related to the Claimant’s alleged breaches, or the associated costs. The documents are relevant and material to issues of causation and quantum, and must be disclosed. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant or between the Defendant and third parties. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant or between the Defendant and third parties. | Mons has searched for and produces an internal communication (along with documents from its standard production). As noted, Mons’ has produced documents related to refunds in its standard production. Refer to: (1) folder titled “D. Financial Documents” and document no. 21 titled “Kitopi Summary” which includes sheets related to branding in the first data sheet and second data sheet titled “EVENT BRANDING”; and (2) see folder titled “G. Relaunch Costs” which including four sub-folders titled “A. Mobilization & Setup”, “B. Staff Uniform”, “C. Marketing” and “D. Rebranding Cost”. For ease of reference, those documents are re-produced. For the avoidance of doubt, Mons is not claiming the costs for cling film which is for a tiny amount of AED 126 per relevant cling film. |
The Defendant has not produced any new material in relation to this request beyond standard production. The request is made, on the basis that further searches should be carried out for the reasons already given, and which were not materially responded to in the Defendant’s Objections.n |
Mons has produced considerable documentation against this request, including a new document, which Kitopi has ignored. Mons will quantify its claim in its quantum expert report due on 19 September 2025 and Kitopi has a right to then reply (should it wish to) by 7 November 2025. Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made already would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality and involve an unreasonable burden on Mons. Further, it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any further documents. Kitopi’s request should be rejected. |
Request refused. No further production is justified. |
| 40. | Employment Contract for Ms Faida Sabounel | The Claimant pleads that Ms Sabounel was an employee of the Defendant’s parent (TGP International): ¶31(d). The Defendant pleads that Ms Sabounel was employed by the Defendant as a Safety Manager. The Claimant seeks a copy of her contract of employment, on the basis of its pleaded assertion that she was no an independent inspector. |
The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | Although this is not relevant and material to the dispute, this was already produced in Mons’ standard production of documents, but for ease of reference it is produced again (in redacted form). | The request is withdrawn based on documents already produced. | Mons notes that Kitopi has “withdrawn” this request. | No decision required. | |
| 41. | Correspondences between the Defendant’s employees and Ms Faida Sabounel from 4 to 6 December 2023. The documents include Correspondences sent to Ms Sabounel at her Mons / TGP email address, her expocity email address, and her WhatsApp or mobile phone number. |
The Claimant pleads that Ms Sabounel was an employee of the Defendant’s parent (TGP International): ¶31(d). The Defendant pleads that Ms Sabounel was employed by the Defendant as a Safety Manager. The Claimant seeks a copy of the Defendant’s Correspondences with Ms Sabounel, in order to explain the context in which she visited the Defendant Kitchen, and the information that had been provided to her in respect of the complaints she prepared following her visit. | The document is not in the requesting party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | The document is in the responding party’s control, as they relate to documents internal to the Defendant. | Although this is duplicative of various requests, Mons has searched for and produces several documents (along with documents from its standard disclosure). As noted, Kitopi’s request 41 is redundant because these documents were produced in Mons’ standard production of documents. Ms. Faida Sabouneh was employed by Mons as confirmed in the production against Kitopi’s request no. 40, which was previously produced (redacted form). Additionally, anything beyond the search already undertaken and the production made already would offend principles of procedural economy and proportionality, involve an unreasonable burden on Mons, and it would be very time consuming and expensive to undertake such an expansive search for any such further documents which are unclear to even exist. |
The documents produced in standard production are not a full or complete set of communications between the Defendant and Ms Sabounel. The request is therefore maintained, and the Defendant should be required to carry out a full and proper search for the documents, which are plainly relevant and material to the dispute. |
Mons has made a considerable production of around 30 relevant documents against this request. If the attachments to the email correspondence are included, Mons’ production against this request alone is around the number of documents Kitopi produced against Mons’ entire requests to produce. Kitopi appears not to have reviewed the material as Mons has produced various new material in addition to the considerable documents produced in Mons’ standard production, including (amongst others): (1) email chain between Protocol Food Consultancy and Expo City Dubai (and others) with subject line “RE: Weekly NC Status Report” dated between 27 November 2023 – 5 December 2023; (2) email chain between COP28 and TGP International (and others) with subject line “RE: Food Safety Catch Up” dated between 4 December 2023 – 5 December 2023); and (3) email chain between Dubai Municipality and Expo City Dubai dated between 30 November 2023 to 5 December 2023. Other than the produced documents, Mons repeats its response and objection. |
Request refused. Unnecessary and fishing. |
CLAIM NO: CFI 081/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN:
KITOPI CATERING SERVICES LLC
Claimant/Defendant in Counterclaim
- AND -
MONS HOSPITALITY FZE
Defendant/Claimant in Counterclaim
DEFENDANT AND CLAIMANT IN COUNTERCLAIM’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE
1. In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 26 March 2025 and Rules 28.16 and 28.17 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), Mons Hospitality FZE (hereafter “Mons”), as the Defendant and Claimant in the Counterclaim, hereby requests Kitopi Catering Services LLC (hereafter “Kitopi”), as the Claimant and Defendant in the Counterclaim, to produce the documents described in Mons’ Redfern Schedule below (the “Requested Documents”).
2. The terms “Document” or “Documents” mean or means “anything in which information of any description is recorded” under RDC 28.1 and “[t]he definition of a document extends to electronic documents, including email and other electronic communications, word processed documents and databases. In addition to documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, the definition covers those documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and electronic documents that have been ‘deleted’. It also extends to additional information stored and associated with electronic documents known as metadata” under RDC 28.2. For the avoidance of doubt, Document or Documents include or includes all writings of any kind, whether recorded on paper or by electronic means, audio/voice or visual recordings, or any other mechanical or electronic means of storing or recording information, including but not limited to internal and external communications (including reports, presentations, letters, e-mail and facsimile correspondence), notes, spreadsheets, meeting minutes, transcripts, talking points, agendas, memoranda, proposals, drawings, pictures, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, logs, images, data or data compilations, invoices, payment certificates, receipts and financial statements, stored in any medium from which information can be obtained in a reasonably usable form.2
3. The terms “Communication” or “Communications” mean written communications, whether recorded on paper or by electronic means, including internal and external communications (including reports, presentations, letters, e-mail and facsimile correspondence), notes, spreadsheets, meeting minutes, transcripts, talking points, agendas, memoranda, and similar sorts of methods of communications which includes WhatsApp communications and audio/voice notes.
4. Where applicable and not otherwise defined herein, capitalised terms have the same meaning as in the Supply of Goods Agreement with a commencement date of 15 November 2023 (the “Agreement”) or Mons’ Particulars of Claim dated 24 December 2024 (“Mons’ POC”).
5. For the avoidance of any doubt, where Mons has requested documents relevant to assertions made by Kitopi in its submissions or elsewhere, no admission is made as to the relevance or accuracy of those assertions.
6. “Event” means the “Catering operation in Dubai Expo City covering Blue and Green Zone. Kitopi working on behalf of Mons Catering” as defined in the “PARTICULARS” to the Agreement.
7. The use of the word “including” to confirm the scope of documents that form part of a request is not deemed to be a restriction upon the extent or scope of any such request. Any list of matters which follows the word “including” in this document should accordingly be read as “including but not limited to…”.
8. To the extent documents responsive to one or more of Mons’ requests do not exist, Kitopi should state the reason and explain the bases for the same, including the searches it conducted in this regard.
9. Mons confirms that all the Requested Documents are:
a. relevant to the case and material to its outcome (as further detailed below);
b. assumed to be in the possession, custody or control of Kitopi under RDC 28.17(4); and
c.not in the possession, custody or control of Mons as far as Mons is aware (unless stated otherwise) under RDC 28.17(4)(a).
10. To elaborate on paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) above, unless stated otherwise, Mons confirms that, as far as it is aware, the documents requested are not in its possession, custody or control or it is unreasonably burdensome and expensive for the requesting party to find and produce such documents, as relevant, under RDC 28.17(4)(a)-(b). Mons assumes that the Requested Documents are in Kitopi’s possession, custody or control because they will have been created or received in the ordinary course of its business and/or because Kitopi’s submissions and other documents or records (such as their standard disclosure) may indicate that the Documents are likely to be in Kitopi’s possession, custody or control.
11. Electronically stored information should be produced in its native format with all accompanying metadata. To the extent that it is not possible to produce documents in native format, Mons requests Kitopi to so state and to produce the relevant document(s) in searchable PDF format along with all available metadata.
12. With respect to hard copy documents, if these cannot reasonably be produced in native format, IPD requests Respondents to provide them as searchable PDF files. Documents should be submitted in their entirety (including any enclosures or attachments) and as kept in the ordinary course of business, and, in the case of e-mail correspondence, with any attached files.
| No | Documents or Category of Documents Requested | Relevance and Materiality According to Requesting Party | Kitopi Responses/ Objections to Document Requests | Mons Replies to Objections to Document Requests | Kitopi Rejoinder (If any) | DIFC Court’s Decisions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference to Pleadings, Exhibits and Documents | Comments | ||||||
| 1. | Any Documents and Communications (including but not limited to internal communications such as email and WhatsApp communications) regarding Kitopi undertaking deliveries or drop-offs to consumers in the COP28 Event. | Mons’ PoC ¶¶ 9-10, 24.4, 25.6; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 19(b); Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 7, 8 (including 8.1-8.6), 14, 21, 22, 22.1, 37.2, and 38. |
This request is relevant and material to proving which party had responsibility to deliver to end consumers under the Agreement. Mons submits that Kitopi had full responsibility for the entire process from preparing to delivering the meal products to the end-consumers. Kitopi denies this and states that “[i]t is denied, insofar as it is suggested, that the Claimant was responsible for serving Products to end-consumers” (Kitopi’s Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 19(b)). This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents which Kitopi can easily find and produce to Mons. |
The Claimant objects. First, the Request is incredibly broad and unfocussed. It seeks “all Documents” and “all Communications” (adopting the broad defined terms in the RDC) which are then expressly said not to be limited to emails and WhatsApps. Even if there was such a limitation, a request for “all emails and all WhatsApps” in connection with a particular subject matter, without identified custodians, would be excessive. Requests that are unfocussed, and cast in unduly broad terms, are generally rejected by the Court: Taaleem PJSC v National Bonds Corporation PJSC & Anor [2010] CFI 014 (14 January 2013) at [18]. Second, RDC 28.17(1) requires the requesting party to provide a description of a document sufficient to identify it. The Defendant has failed to comply with RDC Part 28, because it is unclear what documents “regarding Kitopi undertaking deliveries or drop-offs to consumers” actually means, or what documents would be encompassed in such a request Third, RDC 28.17(2) requires the requesting party to provide a description of a document sufficient to identify it, and with sufficient detail to identify a narrow and specific category of documents that are reasonably believed to exist. No attempt has been made to identify “narrow” or “specific” categories of documents. It is simply a request for all documents concerning deliveries, rather than particular deliveries or deliveries on a particular date which are said to be relevant to the dispute. Fourth, RDC 28.17(3) requires the requesting party to identify why the documents are relevant and material to the dispute. There is no alleged breach concerning the Claimant’s alleged “service” to customers. The Defendant’s counterclaim revolves around questions of the circumstances in which the kitchen in which meal boxes were assembled, was closed following an inspection. There is no material issue concerning the question of whether the Claimant served end customers. The documents are not relevant or material to the issues in dispute. At the very least, the documents lack sufficient relevance or materiality for the purposes of RDC 28.28(1). Fifth, in light of the breadth of the categories of documents requested, and their (at best) tangential relevance to the case, it would be unreasonably burdensome to produce the requested evidence for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). The Claimant struggles to identify where a search for documents would begin, the Defendant has made no effort to identify precise custodians or search terms to be applied, and any search is likely to require the use of terms that are so generic that a manual review of large amounts of material would be required. The extent of the Defendant’s failures to submit a compliant request are such that the Claimant is unable to make a meaningful counter-proposal. |
Mons repeats its previous request for the documents in this category. As to the first to third objections, Mons denies that it is broad or otherwise not focused. Mons is simply looking for any Document which shows that Kitopi delivered products directly to end consumers. That is a very precise and narrow request. Kitopi should have clear and unequivocal evidence of such a matter as would be expected of any catering company. Kitopi has not denied having any such documents but appears to want to evade its disclosure obligation by making creative and unsustainable arguments.4 Kitopi is the party that will have records as to who arranged and/or carried out such deliveries, and it is therefore not in Mons’ knowledge as to which custodians would hold relevant correspondence or documents relating to their delivery. As to the fourth objection on relevance, this is also rejected. This request is relevant and material to the case as it goes to the heart of the parties’ legal obligations, including in proving whether Kitopi was providing end-to-end service (i.e. from preparation to final delivery of the Products), which is a matter Kitopi denies5 without any evidence. Mons considers Kitopi’s position to be unsustainable6 . Whether Kitopi supplied products to end consumers or not is a central to the Court’s future determination on liability, so this is animportant request. Mons denies that this request to produce would be unduly burdensome upon Kitopi. It is a request which covers a short period of time and is likely to involve a limited number of relevant custodians who can provide material relating to delivery of the Products at the Event. Kitopi should be compelled to produce such Documents which Mons believes it should have in its possession and tactically seeking to avoid disclosing them. |
Request refused. The documents sought are not narrow and specific and are, at best, of peripheral relevance. | |
| 2. | All internal Kitopi Documents and Communications following on from Simon Wright’s cancellation of further deliveries by email on 6 December 2023 (timed at 1.14am) with email subject line “Re: Food Safety at Rising Flavor”7 or “FW: Food Safety at Rising Flavor”8. | Kitopi’s Disclosure Exhibit No. C-19 9 ; Kitopi Mons’ POC ¶¶ 11 and 30; Kitopi’s POC1 ¶ 13; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 11(a); Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 39, 51, 71. |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of the case as the Documents directly pertain to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the Agreement and are central to understanding Kitopi’s reasoning, internal deliberations and subsequent actions in response to what Kitopi alleges was a wrongful termination. These materials are likely to show whether Kitopi treated the Agreement as terminated, the factual and legal basis for its position, and any internal concerns, decisions or contradictions in its approach. They go to the heart of the dispute on termination and are therefore crucial to the judge’s determination of the issue at trial. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to termination and in relation to a specific email which Kitopi can easily find and produce to Mons. |
The Claimant Objects. The nature of the Defendant’s request is extraordinary and does not comply with RDC Part 28. First, it is not a request for a particular document at all for the purposes of RDC 28.17(1). It is simply a blanket request for all internal Documents and Communications post-dating 1.14am on 6 December 2023. Second, it is certainly not a request for a “narrow and specific” category of documents, and no effort whatsoever has been made to identify a particular issue or subject matter with respect to the Documents or Communications. Requests that are unfocussed, and cast in unduly broad terms, should be rejected: Taaleem at [18]. Third, no proper explanation is given as to relevance and materiality pursuant to RDC 28.17(3). The Defendant says that it wishes to understand “Kitopi’s reasoning” and “internal deliberations”. That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not prior to 6 December 2023, the Claimant acted in breach of its contractual obligations. Fourth, the nature of the documents requested are likely to be caught by litigation privilege, and therefore not disclosable for the purposes of RDC 28.28(2). The Claimant’s “internal deliberations” concerning the circumstances in which the Defendant terminated the contract between the Parties will have been produced at a time when litigation between the Parties was reasonably contemplated. Fifth, in light of the breadth of the categories of documents requested, and their (at best) tangential relevance to the case, it would be unreasonably burdensome to produce the requested evidence for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). The Claimant struggles to identify where a search for documents would begin, the Defendant has made no effort to identify precise custodians or search terms to be applied, and any search is likely to require the use of terms that are so generic that a manual review of large amounts of material would be required. The extent of the Defendant’s failures to submit a compliant request are such that the Claimant is unable to make a meaningful counter-proposal. |
Mons repeats its previous request for the documents in this category and does not accept any of the grounds of objection. Mons’ offers the same reply to Request 1 above mutatis mutandis and further responds in terms of specifics against this request. As to relevance, this request is highly relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. it relates to the chain of email communication relating to the cancellation, corrective action Kitopi confirmed it would undertake and failed to do so, and Mons terminating the Agreement (which was accepted). It is to be noted that Mons even provided specific exhibits of the communications to Kitopi for its ease of reference (i.e. Exhibit RTP1 and Exhibit RTP2). This request is very precise and specific and relates to all further communications emanating from Simon Wright’s email dated 6 December 2023 (timed at 1.14am). Kitopis’s suggestion that it “struggles” to identify where to begin the search is telling against the specific requests and follow-on correspondence regarding a specific email. It appears that Kitopi has not even tried to look for the relevant documents against this request (which would have been very easy to undertake given the reference to a specific email chain) yet goes onto to state in the most generic term possible that “the nature of the documents are likely to be caught by litigation privilege” (without even checking the documents and providing a clear legal reference to why they are privileged in a blanket way). That is prime facie insufficient and an untenable argument that must be rejected. Kitopi’s failure to even check and produce documents against this request is in bad-faith and it must be compelled to produce the requested documents. |
Request allowed. The documents sought go to an important issue in the case and ought to be searched for. If there is a valid claim for privilege it can be made but it does not appear likely that all responsive documents will b privileged. | |
| 3. | All Documents (including Communications through email and WhatsApp and/or othermeans) where Kitopi internally raised any issues and concerns as to the quality of Products. |
Mons’ POC ¶¶ 14, 24, 24.1, 24.2, 24.3 and 25.6; Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶¶ 9, 14.2 and 22.1; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 7.e and 31.a.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 6, 14, 17 (including 17.1 to 17.5), 45, 47, 48 (including 48.1 and 48.2), 49, 53, 55, et al. |
This request is relevant and material to this dispute because it concerns the core allegation that Kitopi failed to supply Products “of satisfactory quality and fit for any purpose” under the Agreement, which Kitopi denies. These Documents are likely to reveal the extent and nature of any quality-related issues experienced or perceived by Kitopi, as well as how such issues were contemporaneously communicated and addressed internally (e.g. through escalations to chefs or kitchen teams). These Documents will assist in the determination of the core issue regarding Product quality and are, therefore, directly relevant to the factual and legal resolution of this issue at trial. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to quality issues with the Products which Kitopi can easily search for, find and produce to Mons. |
The Claimant Objects. The Defendant’s non-compliance with RDC 28.17 and 28.28 is identical to the objections set out with respect to Request 1: (i) it is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). Further, as regards relevance and materiality, the Defendant misidentifies the “core allegation” in this case as being about a general failure to provide goods that were of satisfactory quality. That is not the Defendant’s pleaded case. The particularised allegations concerning satisfactory quality (POC at [24]) concern a specific item of food that was allegedly contaminated with mould, the presence of expired items within the chiller at the Mons Kitchen, the alleged hospitalisation of a customer, and issues arising from the Dubai Municipality Inspection. There is no broader issue concerning "product quality" pleaded by the Defendant, and it is not in issue whether e.g. customers were unhappy with the taste of the food, the dishes that were on offer, or any other matters. In short, the Defendant’s request has no bearing on the case which it has pleaded. The extent of the Defendant’s failures to submit a compliant request are such that the Claimant is unable to make a meaningful counter-proposal. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. Any internal documents raising and discussing the quality of products (as defined in the Agreement) is directly relevant and material to the core issue in this dispute, i.e. whether Kitopi supplied products of satisfactory quality and if they were fit for purpose under clause 3.1(a) of the Agreement. Kitopi should conduct a reasonable search for any such Documents and produce them. Kitopi has made no efforts at all to do that and simply objected to this request. Kitopi’s involved personnel in this COP28 Event in respect of the parties Agreement could easily be asked to find and locate any such documents and point Kitopi’s team to the same, and Kitopi could conduct some searches in custodian folders. Kitopi has failed to do anything. Kitopi’s failure to even check and produce documents against this request is in bad-faith and it must be compelled to produce the requested documents. |
Request denied. The documents sought are not narrow and specific. | |
| 4. | All Documents (including Communications) where Kitopi internally raised any issues and concerns with Kitopi complying with statutory and regulatory requirements (such as packaging of the Products, temperature controls or such other issues and concerns). | Various references including inter alia Mons’ POC ¶¶ 14, 25 (including 25.1 to 25.6); Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(a); Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 7, 14, 58, et al |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of this case as it relates to Kitopi’s obligation under Clause 3.1 of the Agreement to “comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements relating to the manufacture, labelling, packaging, storage, handling and delivery of the products”. These Documents are also directly relevant to assessing breaches of statutory and regulatory requirements and Kitopi’s conduct and treatment of the same. These Documents will also provide important factual context to Kitopi’s performance and conduct under the Agreement. Whether Kitopi is in breach of applicable legal and regulatory requirements is a core issue in dispute and these Documents will assist with informing the position on this issue in the case and ultimately aid in the determination of the dispute by the judge. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to statutory and regulatory issues with the Products which Kitopi can easily conduct a reasonable search for, find and produce to Mons, such as internal discussions regarding Kitopi’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements for the Products. | The Claimant Objects. The Defendant’s non-compliance with RDC 28.17 and 28.28 is identical to the objections set out with respect to Request 1: (i) it is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). As regards specific issues concerning temperature control, those are dealt with in relation to the Defendant’s more specific Requests 25 to 27 below. The request, insofar as it relates to packaging, is not understood. There is no pleaded issue concerning packaging. The additional request relating to “other issues” is plainly non-compliant with Part 28 RDC. The extent of the Defendant’s failures to submit a compliant request are such that the Claimant is unable to make a meaningful counter-proposal (save as set out in response to Requests 25 to 27). |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific request that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi breached its obligations under Clause 3.1 of the Agreement by failing to “comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements relating to the manufacture, labelling, packaging, storage, handling and delivery of the products”. All failures in this regard are relevant and material, including any issues as to packaging. Kitopi can check internally with involved personnel and conduct rapid searches to identify if any such documents exist. This should be an easy and efficient process. It is almost like a yes or no question, but Kitopi should not be allowed to provide any answer at all, which if they continue to do so, should be inferred to be adverse against Kitopi. Additionally, Kitopi refers to Requests 25 to 27 regarding temperature controls and checks which is dealt with separately to which Kitopi has also objected, so Kitopi has failed to engage in the request to process at all. Kitopi’s failure to even check and produce documents against this request is in bad-faith and it must be compelled to produce the requested documents. |
Request refused. As for 3. | |
| 5. | All Documents (including Communications) whereby Kitopi raised issues and concerns regarding its staffing levels during its catering operations for the Event, including any internal complaints and issues regarding staffing matters. | Various references including inter alia Mons’ POC ¶¶ 14, 20 and 26 (including 26.1 and 26.2); Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.b.; Mons’ Rely and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 67; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023. |
This request is relevant and material to this dispute because it pertains directly to Kitopi’s contractual obligation under Clause 3.2 of the Agreement 11 , which requires a minimum provision of 12 staff to manage the catering services. These Documents are likely to shed critical light on the actual staffing circumstances and background factual circumstances which is relevant to the determination of this issue. The disclosure of these Documents will help clarify the factual background and context of the staffing issues and what happened during the COP28 Event, including any shortfalls and challenges during the Event. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to staffing issues which Kitopi can easily conduct a reasonable search for, find and produce to Mons. |
The Claimant Objects. The Defendant’s non-compliance with RDC 28.17 and 28.28 is identical to the objections set out with respect to Request 1: (i) it is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). Further, as regards relevance and materiality, the Defendant has not properly pleaded a case concerning inadequacy of staffing levels, but simply reserved the right to do so (POC at [26]). The Claimant has already provided documents which are relevant to the actual pleaded particulars of breach at POC [26]. The Request is, self- evidently, a fishing expedition for information unrelated to the Defendant’s pleaded case. If the Defendant had any issue with staffing levels, and if those issues were relevant to its decision to terminate the contract, then it would have communicated those concerns contemporaneously and disclosed documents in relation to the same. It has not, and as such, it is not an issue in this case. The Defendant cannot seek to reconstruct its own rationale for termination, with the benefit of hindsight, by reference to issues that it did not appear to have contemplated at the time. Subject to the below in relation to Request 6, the extent of the Defendant’s failures to submit a compliant request are such that the Claimant is unable to make a meaningful counter-proposal. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi had the required number of staff at the COP28 Event as required under Clause 3.2 of the Agreement. To be precise that Event is in relation to the arrangements between the parties under the Agreement at the Oasis Food Hall, and not the entirety of the entire COP28 with respect to other unrelated catering operations Kitopi may have had with others during the overall COP28 programme. Mons does not require materials in respect of Kitopi’s unrelated operations. Additionally, Kitopi’s allegation that Mons “has not properly pleaded a case concerning inadequacy of staffing levels, but simply reserved the right to do so” and so it should not provide disclosure against this request is nonsense and defeats the purpose of the disclosure process. Mons has pleaded the point which it seeks to prove in the evidentiary hearing and has provided some references in this document (see the column “Reference to Pleadings, Exhibits and Documents”, which Kitopi has completely ignored): e.g. Mons’ POC ¶¶ 14, 20 and 26 (without covering that portion again). Contrary to Kitopi’s response, paragraph 26 of Mons’ POC specifically pleads the point12. Further, Mons in its Rely and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 67 stated that Kitopi is simply trying to “evade this issue by neither admitting or denying failing to provide a minimum of 12 staff to handle the catering services” under clause 3.2 of the Agreement. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Kitopi states that it “has already provided documents which are relevant to the actual pleaded particulars of breach at POC [26]”. Yet, Kitopi has not identified the document it is referring to and if that allegedly relevant document even relates to the specific COP28 Event as covered under the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement (not other operations Kitopi was involved in). As can be seen, Kitopi is trying to evade its obligations and create muddy waters, but this should not be tolerated. Kitopi’s failure to even check and produce documents against this request is in bad-faith and it must be compelled to produce the requested documents. |
Request refused. As for 3. | |
| 6. | All Documents setting out the details of all its relevant accredited staff in the Event (including Oasis Food Hall known as “Rising Flavour”) including their full names, accredited badge number, role, and data/time of access to Oasis Food Hall during the Event. | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 14 and 26; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 67; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(b). |
This request is relevant and material to this dispute because it goes directly to the heart of the issue whether Kitopi met its contractual obligations under the Agreement by providing the required number of staff to manage the catering services for the Event. Moreover, given Kitopi’s denial of the allegation without furnishing any detailed staffing information, these Documents are essential to informing facts which are relevant to the determination of this issue. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to staffing which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
To avoid repetition, and making this schedule unwieldy, the Claimant repeats each of the points made in respect of Request 5. The Defendant is seeking to artificially reconstruct a case on breach which has no bearing on the actual reasons behind its decision to terminate the agreement. However, notwithstanding the above, in response to Requests 5 and 6 the Claimant offers to produce its available records in relation to the staff involved in the Event and their certificates. That is reasonable, and proportionate, and will avoid unnecessary further disputes in respect of unpleaded allegations concerning staffing. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “offers to produce its available records in relation to the staff involved in the Event and their certificates” but it has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Nonetheless, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced some documents concerning its employees, but it is broadly unclear exactly how those documents are relevant in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement. Kitopi does not appear to have provided details of all its accredited staff (which was required as a security measure) in the Event, including their specific names and badge numbers in respect of the specific Event under the Agreement. Mons seeks and requires this information to determine whether Kitopi complied with its contractual obligations and identify who was in Oasis Food Hall, which is relevant to the determination of other issues, including whether such employees had adequate qualifications as required by local laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. For the avoidance of doubt, Mons requires information as to Kitopi’s accredited staff as involved in the arrangement under the Agreement between the parties (Mons is not interested in Kitopi’s staff as involved in other projects during COP28). Kitopi should not seek to muddy the waters here, but if there is a nuanced position it should explain its position |
Request allowed. The documents sought are relevant and material and narrow in scope. | |
| 7. | All Documents setting out the food and hygiene training and qualifications of all accredited Kitopi staff in Oasis Food Hall and the Event. |
Various references including inter alia Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25, 25.1, 25.5, 25.6, 26, 26.1, 27, 27.1; Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶ 25; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(b); Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 44.2, 52, 61, 67, 68, 68.1; Food Code 2013; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023. |
This request is relevant and material to this dispute because it goes directly to the heart of the issue whether Kitopi provided qualified and competent staff to handle the catering services for the Event, which is critical for assessing whether Kitopi met its contractual obligations under the Agreement. Moreover, given Kitopi’s denial of the allegation without furnishing any detailed staffing information, these Documents are essential to informing facts which are relevant to the determination of this issue. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to staffing which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents setting out the food and hygiene training and qualifications of all accredited Kitopi staff who worked at Oasis Food Hall and at the Event. | Mons notes that Kitopi “has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents…”, but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Nonetheless, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced some documents concerning food safety certificates for a few of it its employees, but it is broadly unclear exactly how those documents are relevant in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement. Kitopi must confirm if those documents specifically relate to the arrangements in Oasis Food Hall between the parties under the Agreement (as opposed to being Kitopi’s employees generally or dedicated elsewhere during COP28). Additionally, Kitopi has produced documents well outside the date range of the Event, i.e. it is not relevant or applicable during the timing of the Event, such as a document concerning its apparent employee named “Arsalan” with a basic food certificate from a later year (“27/08/2024”) or earlier years for this person and various people. If Kitopi unequivocally confirms (which it must do) that its produced documents relate specifically to its employees in “Oasis Food Hall and the Event” and that is all it has in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement and produces documents to confirm this to be the case, Mons requires no further production against this request. Otherwise, the Court should compel Mons to undertake further searches and produce further documents to confirm its position, failing which, the Court infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. |
||
| 8. | All Documents relating to the occupational health cards (or equivalent health certification) for all accredited staff deployed under the Agreement for the Event. | Various places including inter alia Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25, 25.1, 25.5, 25.6, 26, 26.1, 27, 27.1; Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶ 25; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(b); Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 44.2, 52, 61, 67, 68 and 68.1; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute because it goes to the heart of a central issue—namely, whether Kitopi provided qualified and competent staff to perform the catering services for the Event and whether Kitopi’s accredited staff were medically authorised to undertake the work required under the Agreement. The Requested Documents are important for assessing whether Kitopi complied with its contractual and regulatory obligations (denied by Kitopi (see e.g. Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(b)), which is an issue the judge must ultimately determine in this case. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Kitopi’s staff’s occupation health cards in Oasis Food Hall relating to the Agreement which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request. | As above, Mons notes that Kitopi “has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request” but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Nonetheless, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced some documents concerning occupational health cards for a few of it its employees, but it is unclear exactly how those documents are relevant in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement. Kitopi must confirm if those documents specifically relate to the arrangements in Oasis Food Hall between the parties under the Agreement (as opposed to being Kitopi’s employees generally or dedicated elsewhere during COP28). If Kitopi unequivocally confirms (which it must be able to do so) that its produced documents relate specifically to its employees in Oasis Food Hall and the Event and that is all it has in respect of the specific arrangements between the parties under the Agreement, Mons requires no further production against this request. Otherwise, the Court should compel Mons to undertake further searches and produce further documents to confirm its position, failing which, the Court infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. For the avoidance of doubt, Mons requires the relevant information here in relation to the specific arrangement under the Agreement between the parties (Mons is not interested in Kitopi’s relevant staff as involved in other projects during COP28). Kitopi should not seek to muddy the waters here, but if there is a nuanced position, it should explain its position. |
No order necessary as the Claimant agrees the Request. | |
| 9. | All Documents relating to Kitopi undertaking daily and weekly hygiene cleaning at Oasis Food Hall during the Event. | Mons’ POC ¶ 25 (e.g. 25.5 and 25.6); Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶ 25; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32(b); Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 14, 44.2, 60, 61, 62 and 64; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding cleaning and hygiene checks in Oasis Food Hall under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Kitopi’s daily and weekly hygiene cleaning records in Oasis Food Hall which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for daily and weekly hygiene cleaning at Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly hygiene checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). The Defendant’s facility was only used to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes). Pursuant to arrangements agreed between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant’s stewards cleaned the relevant facilities. In the premises, the documents requested are not reasonably believed to exist. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi undertook daily and weekly hygiene cleaning at Oasis Food Hall. Irrespective of Kitopi’s false assertion that this request is based on a false assertion, it is Mons’ position that Kitopi had to undertook this work. Kitopi should have no problem in providing this information, which should be done as a matter of industry standard. Additionally, Mons assertion that the requested documents “are not reasonably believed to exist” when it has failed to conduct any searches is unbelievable and must be rejected. In any event, Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, e.g. Taleem v National Bonds ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there has been a total failure to do any search or state what has been done as nothing has been done yet Kitopi reaches a premature conclusion. This in itself should lead to an adverse inference against Kitopi. Accordingly, Kitopi’s failure to even check and produce documents against this request is in bad-faith and it must be compelled to produce the requested documents. |
Request refused. Of tangential relevance at best. | |
| 10. | All Documents covering any Kitopi managers checklist or equivalent operational records for the opening and closing of each service day at the Oasis Food Hall for the Event. | Various – may be relevant to more than issue in dispute. | This request is relevant and material regarding whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations (including inter alia cleaning and hygiene, the conditions of the maintenance of food products and disposal of waste) in Oasis Food Hall under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Kitopi’s managers checklists in Oasis Food Hall which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant agrees that it will carry out a reasonable search for its operational records but reasonably believes that documents responsive to this request do not exist. | Mons notes that Kitopi “agrees that it will carry out a reasonable search for its operational records but reasonably believes that documents responsive to this request do not exist”, but, Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. Additionally, Mons assertion that it “reasonably believes” that no responsive documents exist against this request when it has failed to conduct any searches whatsoever by the above date is unbelievable. In any event, Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, e.g. Taleem v National Bonds ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there appears to have been a total failure to do any search or state what has been done. This in itself should lead to an adverse inference against Kitopi. As noted above, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced some documents not related to this request and it has failed to confirm its position against this request or confirm that it does not have any such documents. |
No order necessary as a search will be carried out. | |
| 11. | Any Documents setting out any external complaint Kitopi and its staff received regarding Kitopi’s Products and operations during the Event, including from the COP organisers, inspectors/regulators, end consumers and any such internal complaints regarding their Products and operations. | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 19, 24.4 and 25.6; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 27 and 31 (including 31.a. to 31.g.). |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it addresses the core issue of Kitopi’s performance under the Agreement. The Requested Documents— which detail any complaints received regarding Kitopi’s Products and operations during the Event (including those from the COP organisers, inspectors/regulators, end consumers, and any internal complaints)—are crucial. Such disclosures will clarify the factual position and operational realities regarding Kitopi’s service delivery and may shed light on whether Kitopi’s performance met its contractual obligations. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to any external complaints Kitopi received which it should also have in its possession and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents. |
The Claimant will make a conditional offer to search for and produce documents which are responsive to Request 11, on the basis that the Defendant agrees to the equivalent requests made by the Claimant at Request 14, 18, 35 and 36 of its Request to Produce. | Mons notes that in its response, Kitopi has made a “conditional offer to search for and produce” responsive documents. This “conditional offer” is wholly inappropriate. A document will fall to be produced in accordance with RDC Part 28 based upon the relevance of the documents in question and the request made. There can be no conditionality placed on any document production based upon the responding party’s satisfaction with responses to its own Request to Produce. Kitopi should be deemed to have acceded to the Request and produced documents accordingly. However, Kitopi has failed to do so. Mons again notes that Kitopi failed to produce any documents pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, but it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to undertake full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents are adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. Kitopi is trying to abuse the request to produce process by failing to produce documents within the required time or conducting any searches. Finally, and in any event, Mons notes that it responded to Kitopi’s request nos. 14, 35 and 36 and confirmed that it is not aware of any proceedings against it arising from the COP28 Event regarding the supply of any food products (i.e. Kitopi’s request no. 18). Therefore, any conditionality (which is not applicable) has been satisfied in any event. |
Request refused. Fishing. | |
| 12. | Any Documents and Communications (including but not limited to visuals such as photographs or voice notes) regarding contaminated or mouldy, expired or unfit food products covered for the Event under the Agreement. | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 24 (including 24.1 to 24.5) and 25.6; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 31.a.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 48.1, 53.2, 55, 60 and 62. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it directly addresses the core issue in dispute whether Kitopi failed to supply Products that are “of satisfactory quality and fit for any purpose” under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement. Such Documents would provide further detail and context on the nature of the alleged deficiencies in Kitopi’s Products, help verify the claims and inform the parties regarding the factual matrix surrounding this issue, which will ultimately be determined by the judge in light of all the evidence. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents and Communications regarding unfit food Products which Kitopi should already have and should be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant Objects. First, the Claimant reasonably believes that it does not possess documents requested concerning contaminated or mouldy, expired or unfit food products in respect of the Event. Any documents held are those which were provided by the Defendant. Second, the scope of the request is ambiguous. To the extent it targets expired food, the Claimant’s objections are addressed above. To the extent there is some broader allegation concerning the “satisfactory quality” of the food, the response to Request 3 is repeated. That is not a pleaded issue in this case. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi supplied products that were of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement. This is an essential question for determination in the case. Additionally, Mons assertion that it “reasonably believes” that no responsive documents exist against this request when it has failed to conduct any searches whatsoever is unbelievable and must be rejected. In any event, Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, see the judgment in Taleem v National Bonds at ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there has been a prime facie failure by Kitopi to do any search or state what has been done to find responsive documents, yet Kitopi reaches a premature conclusion. This in itself should lead to an adverse inference against Kitopi. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents. |
Request refused. As for 11. | |
| 13. | Any Documents (including internal Communications) which cover any person feeling sick or having to visit hospital after consumption of Kitopi’s food Products at the Event. | Mons POC ¶ 24.3; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 31.f.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 56. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it directly addresses core allegations concerning the quality and safety of Kitopi’s Products and whether the products were “of satisfactory quality and fit for any purpose” and complied with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and under Clause 3.1 of the Agreement. Furthermore, such Documents are relevant and material to assessing potential reputational damage arising from health and safety concerns. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents and Communications regarding any person feeling sick or receiving hospital treatment which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant agrees that it will carry out a reasonable search for responsive documents but reasonably believes that documents responsive to this request do not exist. | Mons notes that Kitopi “agrees that it will carry out a reasonable search for responsive documents but reasonably believes that documents responsive to this request do not exist”, but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, but it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. Additionally, Mons assertion that it “reasonably believes” that no responsive documents exist against this request when it has failed to conduct any searches whatsoever by the above date is unbelievable and must be rejected. In any event, Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, e.g. Taleem v National Bonds ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there has been a prime facie failure to do any search or state what has been done to find responsive documents, yet Kitopi reaches a premature conclusion. This in itself should lead to an adverse inference against Kitopi. As noted above, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced some irrelevant documents not related to this request and it has failed to confirm its position against this request or confirm that it does not have any such documents. |
No order necessary as a search will be carried out. | |
| 14. | Any Documents (which includes any photographs) which set out the different food products Kitopi stored (such as in the chillers and freezers) in Oasis Food Hall (known as “Rising Flavour”). |
Mons’ POC ¶ 24 (including 24.1 to 24.4); Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 31.b., 31.e., 31.g.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 66. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it pertains directly to the allegations that Kitopi’s Products stored at Oasis Food Hall were contaminated, mouldy, and expired. The Requested Documents are critical to establishing the factual basis of the quality and condition of Kitopi’s Products. These Documents will help inform whether the Products met the required standards and will assist in resolving the dispute over Mons’ claim that Kitopi failed to deliver Products complaint with the Agreement and legal and regulatory standards, which Kitopi denies. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents recording what food products Kitopi kept in Oasis Food Hall which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects. First, the Claimant has already provided a list of the items that were served during the event in its standard production. A reasonable and proportionate search for documents has already been undertaken. Second, the Defendant and its operational team are aware of the items that were served on each day of the event. Those documents are in the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Third, the chiller was not used by Kitopi to store any products/meals for the following day. Accordingly, the Claimant reasonably believes that there are no documents which are responsive to that aspect of the request. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Kitopi’s food products in chillers and freezer in Oasis Food Hall and that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case and relates to the issue whether Kitopi failed to deliver satisfactory and fit for purpose food Products under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement. This is an essential question for determination in the case. Kitopi mischaracterises this request as “items that were served during the event” but that is not addressed or relevant against this specific request. Kitopi notes that the “chillers were not used by Kitopi” which is an unequivocal and conclusive statement Mons disagrees with as will be proven in this litigation and in this regard the request is very pertinent to this issue. Additionally, Kitopi’s assertion that it “reasonably believes” that no responsive documents exist against this request when it has failed to conduct any searches whatsoever is unbelievable and must be rejected. In any event, Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, e.g. Taleem v National Bonds ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there has been a total failure to do any search or state what has been done as nothing has been done yet Kitopi reaches a premature conclusion. This in itself should lead to an adverse inference against Kitopi. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request refused. Fishing. | |
| 15. | Any Documents and Communications Kitopi had with Dubai Municipality or other state entity regarding any issues and violations during the Event. | Kitopi’s Disclosure Exhibit Nos. C-1213 , C-1514 , C-1615 and C.1716 ; Mons’ POC ¶¶ 24.4, 25.1, 25.3, 25.4 and 25.6; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32 (32.a. to 32.g.); Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 11, 44 (44.1 to 44.3), 45, 49, 57, 58 (58.1 to 58.5), 59, 60, 61 and 63. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it pertains to determining liability for any failings identified by the Dubai Municipality or other state entities during the Event. The Requested Documents will provide a comprehensive context to the regulatory concerns arising during the Event, particularly in light of Kitopi’s standard disclosure of an internal email from Mr. Afif Reda (whose email signature states his position to be the “Catering and Restaurant Manager”) to others within Kitopi in order “to clarify what happened during the catering event at expo city – Cop28”. In that message, Mr. Afif writes: “I had a discussion with Taline after that about not to risk the Kitopi name since the municipality started to ask about my employer”. In this regard, all information regarding Kitopi’s correspondence with the Dubai Municipality or other relevant state entity for any issues and violations for the Event is relevant and should be disclosed. This document indicates that discussions were taking place regarding safeguarding Kitopi’s reputation from potential regulatory repercussions. Such Documents can inform on the extent of Kitopi’s awareness of and response to any regulatory inquiries or violations, which is relevant to the determination of this dispute. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents and Communications regarding any Documents and Communications with the Dubai Municipality which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request. | Mons notes that Kitopi “has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request”, but, Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. That said, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced two emails in a folder labelled “Municipality Inspection” but the underlying inspections reports with numbers 852759 and 853552 were previously shared as part of Kitopi’s standard production with exhibit reference no. C-15 and C- 16, so Kitopi does not appear to have properly undertaken a search for and produced documents. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to conduct a full search and make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. |
No order necessary as a search will be carried out. | |
| 16. | Any Documents containing internal Communications regarding the Dubai Municipality or other state entity regarding any issues and violations for the Event. | Kitopi’s Disclosure Exhibit Nos. C-12, C- 15, C-16 and C.17; Mons’ POC ¶¶ 24.4, 25.1, 25.3, 25.4 and 25.6; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32 (32.a. to 32.g.); Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 11, 44 (44.1 to 44.3), 45, 49, 57, 58 (58.1 to 58.5), 59, 60, 61 and 63. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it directly pertains to determining liability for any failings identified by the Dubai Municipality. The internal communications concerning Kitopi, the Dubai Municipality or any other state entity regarding issues or violations during the Event are critical for understanding Kitopi’s response and position regarding any regulatory inquiries or concerns. Disclosure of these Documents will help clarify the extent of Kitopi’s internal awareness and handling of any regulatory issues, thereby informing the resolution of liability in this matter. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents covering internal Communications regarding the Dubai Municipality which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request. | As above. Mons notes that Kitopi “has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request”, but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. That said, on Tuesday 6 May 2025, Kitopi produced two emails in a folder labelled “Municipality Inspection” but the underlying inspections reports with numbers 852759 and 853552 were previously shared as part of Kitopi’s standard production with exhibit reference no. C-15 and C- 16, so Kitopi does not appear to have properly undertaken a search for and produced documents. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to conduct a full search and make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. |
No order necessary. The Claimant asserts it will carry out a search and will have to identify details of the same if sought. | |
| 17. | Any Documents which show that Kitopi had a certified person(s) in charge during all hours of operation to manage and oversee the food operations at Oasis Food Hall during the Event, including the qualifications of any such person and any time-logs/records or otherwise to show that they were present during all hours of operation. | Kitopi’s Standard Disclosure Exhibit No. C-517 ; POC ¶ 25.3; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.d.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 63. |
This request is relevant and material to determining liability for failings and violations found by the Dubai Municipality in its report dated 5 December 2023, the applicable statutory and regulatory framework and the Agreement. Kitopi, as part of its standard disclosure, disclosed a document labelled Exhibit C-5 for a person named Aireen Redondo with a validity period from 24 April 2023 to 23 April 2028. It is not clear if Kitopi relies on this document on the basis that this named individual was present during all hours of operations at the Oasis Food Hall during the Event. Additionally, Kitopi in ¶ 32 of its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim states that ‘“two of the Claimant’s employees held certificates to act as a “Person in Cge”’ but then there is an internal note in their submission which reads as follows “[ What can we say about the allegation concerning a person in charge? Is that correct, who was filling that role?]”. As can be seen from Kitopi’s own internal note, which was included in its submission, Mons’ requests disclosure of all such Documents relating to this information. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents which record the details of persons in charge on behalf of Kitopi for the Event at Oasis Food Hall which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects: : (i) the request is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). Without prejudice to those objections, the Claimant offers to produce the PIC Certificates for relevant individuals that it engaged at the Event. |
Mons notes that despite Kitopi’s superficial objection, it “offers to produce the PIC Certificates for relevant individuals that it engaged at the Event”, knowing that this issue is relevant and material to the dispute, including whether Kitopi breached Clauses 2.2 and 3.1(b), 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement, including all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, as reflected in the Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2024. Kitopi as a catering/food company should have such documents evidencing that a person in charge was present during all operations of operation. This is a simple request. And, for the avoidance of doubt, Mons seeks Kitopi’s person(s) in charge during all hours of operation at Oasis Food Hall in respect of the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement. In this request, Mons does not seek Kitopi’s operations and arrangements with third parties and its personnel’s involvement in other projects. Kitopi should not seek to muddy the waters here, but if there is a nuanced position it should explain its position. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. Kitopi’s focused disclosure or confirmation here that no PICs were present during all hours of operation would narrow down this issue and reduce costs in the case. |
Request denied. Not narrow and specific and/or fishing. | |
| 18. | Any Kitopi approved food safety management program for the COP28 Event. |
Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.4 and 27.1; Kitopi Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.e.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 64 and 68.3. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it directly pertains to the establishment and maintenance of food safety program during the COP28 Event—which is important to determining liability for the failings identified by the Dubai Municipality Report, the applicable statutory and regulatory framework and the Agreement. In other words, the Requested Documents would demonstrate the policies, procedures, and measures Kitopi implemented to ensure food safety throughout the Event. Kitopi in its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.e. states that this issue is “minor” and blames Mons for the same, but it does not explain further whether it has any such program and whether those were implemented during the COP28 Event. This request is for a very specific document relating to Kitopi’s food safety management program for the Event. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce this Requested Document (if it had one) which is expected to be kept by food caterings companies, otherwise Kitopi should confirm its position if it did not have any such program for the Event. |
The Claimant objects. The Claimant has already provided the ISO, HACCP certificates during standard production of documents. It has therefore already conducted a reasonable and proportionate search for responsive documents. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled and Mons’ request and its comment is repeated. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents relating to whether Kitopi had an “approved food safety management program” for the COP28 Event under the arrangements covered by the Agreement between the parties. This is a very simple request, and it is essential question for determination in the case. Kitopi’s references to what it has provided during standard production are not relevant against this request regarding what happened at Oasis Food Hall (it relates to things in its kitchens outside the COP premises/event). Kitopi should not seek to muddy the waters and should instead simply confirm if it has such documents or not. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request, or confirm its position if it does not have such documents. This would narrow down this issue and reduce costs in the case. |
Request allowed. Relevant and narrow. | |
| 19. | All Documents (including internal Communications such as WhatsApp, email or through other means) involving Afif Reda relating to the COP28 Event |
Mons’ POC ¶¶ 11, 25.5, and 25.6; Kitopi Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 9.d., 31.b. and 32.f.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 39, 48.2, 50, 51, 61, 62 and 65 |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, specifically Kitopi’s failures to deliver its obligations under the applicable legal and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. Mr. Afif Reda, who at the relevant time was stated to be Kitopi’s “Catering and Restaurant Manager”, was involved in important communications including an email from him to Ms. Faida Sabouneh (Consultant at Expo City Dubai) dated 4 December 2023 (timed at 7:37pm) stipulating “corrective actions” Kitopi would take in the Event. Such Documents and Communications are likely to be relevant to multiple issues and provide contemporaneous insights into failings and issues, which the judge must determine in this dispute. This request is for a narrow and specific category of Documents and Communications regarding Mr. Afif Reda’s involvement in the Event which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily gather and produce. |
The Claimant Objects. The Defendant’s non-compliance with RDC 28.17 and 28.28 is identical to the objections set out with respect to Request 1: (i) it is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). Further, it is plainly not compliant with RDC Part 28 to simply request all communications from a custodian, irrespective of their relevance or materiality to pleaded issues. In any event, the Defendant is requesting categories of documents which are plainly in its possession, custody and control (e.g. communications with Ms Sabouneh – its own employee). |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled and Mons’ request and its comment is repeated. This is a highly important request that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case and relates to all the core issues in dispute namely whether Kitopi fundamentally breached the Agreement between the parties. As Mons’ noted in its “Comments” to the left, Mr. Afif Reda was the “Catering and Restaurant Manager” for Kitopi and he was involved in key inter partes correspondence between the parties, including Mr. Simon Wright (the CEO of Mons) around termination. For the avoidance of doubt, Mons requests all communications involving Mr. Afif Reda who was a key person involved in the issues between the parties regarding the specific arrangement between the parties under the Agreement. This is a narrow and focused request that is essential to the determination of the issues in this dispute. In this regard, it must be noted that these documents could easily be found, such as searching for his sent and received email folders and other documents capturing his notes/feedback on the event. Kitopi can easily find and disclose such documents. As Mr. Afif was heavily involved on the ground operations from Kitopi’s side, it is at least expected he will have sent some important communications (even if not many as he was involved in ground operations). Additionally, it is unbelievable for Kitopi to state that the “requesting categories of documents…are plainly in its possession”. This is wrong. Mons only has few communications between the parties involving him, and requests further documents and communications he was involved in (including internal communications) which are crucial to the determination of this dispute. Kitopi’s suggestion is unbelievable and must be rejected by the Court. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. Kitopi’s disclosure would significantly help the parties and court to resolve this dispute. Without documents from Afif Reda, the parties and Court may not know what happened from one of the key personnel contemporaneously involved in the relevant arrangements from Kitopi’s side. Kitopi failure to produce against this reasonable request should already lead to an inference against them but, should they continue, the Court must draw adverse inferences as they are highly important documents which Mons believes exists. As this is a highly important request for Mons, should Kitopi fail to produce the relevant documents, Mons reserves all its rights to pursue remedies, which should not be necessary if the Court makes the relevant production order. Accordingly, Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request refused. Not narrow and specific and of tangential relevance. | |
| 20. | All Documents and proofs that Kitopi prepared Products to the value of AED 517,550 for 5 December 2023, including a breakdown of the same. | Kitopi’s Standard Disclosure Exhibit C- 2 (Invoice FTI- 0121818) 18 ; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 15; Kitopi’s POC ¶ 12; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 10.b. and 42(2). |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of the case. Kitopi alleges that it delivered 1200 meal boxes on 5 December 2023; however, it has not provided any contemporaneous evidence substantiating the preparation or contents of those meals, including a breakdown as to the number of meals it prepared with evidence. Kitopi, in its standard disclosure shared Exhibit C-2 (Invoice appearing to be dated 10 December 2023) for the same amount for a quantity of “1.00” without providing any breakdown or evidence that these products were in fact prepared and sent out for delivery. This specific request is central to determining whether Kitopi did in fact prepare the quantities it claims to have prepared for direct deliveries to customers. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents that evidence whether Kitopi in fact prepared meals to the value claimed by them. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies |
The Claimant will provide communications including emails and Whatsapp conversation confirming the Defendant’s orders, together with the excel sheets attached to those communications. | Mons notes that Kitopi will produce documents, but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. This means that Kitopi cannot rely on any documents it subsequently produces against this request unless the court gives permission under RDC 28.60, and, because Kitopi failed to produce documents without satisfactory explanation in Mons’ Request to Produce by the deadline (2 May 2025), an adverse interest should be made against Kitopi under RDC 28.61. Nonetheless, in breach of the deadline in the Case Management Order, Kitopi produced some documents. Mons does not further pursue this request. |
No order required given what the Claimant will produce. | |
| 21. | Any Documents (including any communications with COP28 organisers) which Kitopi had or were aware of regarding the security and timing measures and protocols for making deliveries (i.e. the delivery window) in the COP28 Expo City site. | Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶ 13.2; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 10.a.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 29.2, 30, 31, 32 and 71; COP28 UAE Caterer’s Guide (Version 1) dated 18 September 2023 |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of the case because it directly relates to whether Kitopi delivered any Products pursuant to the Agreement and security arrangements informed to them for the project which is a matter the judge must determine in this case. Mons has referenced the COP28 UAE Caterer’s Guide (Version 1) dated 18 September 2023 which it has possession of, but Kitopi must produce any further Documents and Communications in its possession, custody or control (including any Documents provided to it by the organisers of COP28) in respect of the security measures and protocols for making deliveries during the COP28 Event. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents regarding security measures for deliveries which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects. To the extent it is in issue, the relevant documents outlining security arrangements at COP 28 would have been exchanged between the Claimant and the Defendant. To that extent, they are documents which are already in the Defendant’s possession, custody, and control. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Claimant is willing to carry out a targeted search for responsive documents sent to it by the organisers of Cop 28, insofar as the Defendant was not copied on any such communications. |
Mons notes that Kitopi “is willing to carry out a targeted search for responsive documents sent to it by the organisers of Cop 28, insofar as the Defendant was not copied on any such communications”. However, Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. Although Kitopi has confirmed that the relevant documents Mons’ has shared (e.g. the “COP28 UAE Caterer’s Guide (Version 1) dated 18 September 2023” is relevant), Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request, i.e. share all security measures shared with it by COP28. This would narrow down and reduce potential issues in the litigation which would save time and costs in this litigation. |
Request refused beyond that which the Claimant has offered. Overly broad and of tangential relevance. | |
| 22. | Any Document which shows the exact time (Gulf Standard Time) when Kitopi (i.e. its driver) arrived at the required delivery location on 5 December 2023. |
Kitopi’s POC ¶ 12; Mons’ Defence and Counterclaim ¶ 13.2; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 10.a.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 29.2, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 71; COP28 UAE Caterer’s Guide (Version 1) dated 18 September 2023. |
This request is relevant and material to the outcome of the case because the exact timing of Kitopi’s alleged delivery of Products on 5 December 2013 goes to the heart of whether Kitopi complied with its obligations under the applicable security measures and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to when Kitopi’s drivers arrived at the delivery location which Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant has no objection to this request and is willing to carry out a reasonable search for, and produce, documents responsive to this request. | Mons notes that Kitopi “has no objection to this request” and will produce documents, but Kitopi has failed to do so pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC. Kitopi had to make a production under RDC 28.20, however, it failed to do so by 4pm (GST) on 2 May 2025. Accordingly, the Court should still compel Kitopi to make full production, failing which or if inadequate disclosure is done, the Court should infer that any documents against this request would be adverse to Kitopi’s interests under RDC 28.61. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
No order necessary. | |
| 23. | Any Documents showing that Kitopi delivered meal Products to consumers on 5 December 2023 (such as delivery records or delivery receipts). | Kitopi’s POC ¶ 12, Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 16.2 and 33. |
This request is relevant and material to determination of whether Kitopi in fact supplied Products to consumers as it was required to so do under the Agreement. This is a disputed issue which must ultimately be determined by the judge in this case. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to any documents recording Kitopi’s delivery of Products to consumers. Kitopi should already have these Documents and should be able to easily produce them as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Defendant objects. This request is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant delivered meals on 5 December. The Claimant had prepared the meals and assembled the boxes in its central kitchen. However, it was not allowed to enter the Expo location due to security measures on that day. The claimed amount (517,550) does not include the meals prepared on 5 Dec. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. It is not entirely clear what Kitopi’s position is when in paragraph 12 of its POC it states that “On 5 December 2023, the Claimant delivered 1200 meal boxes to the Event, at the location specified by the Defendant in accordance with Clause 4.2 of the Agreement”. Kitopi should be compelled to produce evidence that it actually delivered the Products to end consumers on 5 December 2025 or it should confirm for the avoidance of any doubt that it did not actually deliver any products on 5 December 2023. If Kitopi confirms that it did not deliver any meals on 5 December 2025, Mons does not further pursue this request. |
Request refused. Irrelevant. | |
| 24. | Any Documents (including internal Communications) regarding waste management disposal of waste, and unused materials at the COP28 Event. | Mons’ POC ¶ 24.1; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶¶ 31.g., 32.c. and 32.g.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 52; COP28 UAE Caterer’s Guide (Version 1) dated 18 September 2023. |
This request is relevant and material to determining whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding waste management during the COP28 Event under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to any Documents and Communications regarding waste management at the Event. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for disposal of waste at Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Defendant’s facility was only to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes). The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). There was a Dubai Municipality inspection on the Claimant’s central kitchen in the same week where the Claimant received “A rating”. In standard production the Claimant has already disclosed its communications with the Defendant concerning cleaning arrangements. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi properly managed and disposed waste in Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi’s suggestion that it was not responsible for the cleaning operations at Oasis Food Hall is misconceived. That is the precise issue in dispute and is subject to the judge’s determination. Mons does not request Kitopi’s cleaning records in its own kitchens across Dubai which are not relevant to this request and issue in this dispute so what Kitopi has previously provided is irrelevant against this request. As Kitopi says it had“daily and weekly checks” in its own separate/private kitchens in Dubai outside the COP28 venue, Kitopi as a catering company is expected to have such documents and communications in respect of its operations in Oasis Food Hall. These documents will assist the parties and the court in the determination whether Kitopi breached its waste management obligations in Oasis Food Hall under the Agreement. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request refused. Irrelevant. | |
| 25. | Any Documents and internal Communications regarding temperature checks being conducted in Oasis Food Hall by Kitopi and/or its employees. | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.2 and 25.5; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.c.; Mons’ Reply to Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 62; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to determining whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding failures on temperature monitoring as captured by the Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023 which found that “[m]any RTE food were being stored at 10 C without temperature control” in violation of several provisions of the Dubai Food Code 2013. Kitopi in an email from Mr. Afif Reda (“Catering and Restaurant Manager”) to Ms. Faida Sabouneh (Expo City Dubai) with subject line “Food Safety at Rising Flavor” stated that Kitopi would take the “following corrective action” which would include: “Thermometers & Temperature Check & Record will be implemented upon issuing & receiving” and that “food temperature[s]” would be checked by Kitopi. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents and Communications regarding Kitopi conducting temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Defendant facility was only to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes) with no meals being served in the following day. The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly temperature checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi properly conducted temperature checks and maintained Products to be supplied to end consumers in Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi’s suggestion that it was not responsible for conducting temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall is is misconceived. Kitopi’s own employee stated that Kitopi would carry out temperature checks and record the same (see Mons’ “Comments” in the column to the left) and so Kitopi should have records of these temperature checks. Mons does not request Kitopi’s temperature checks in its own kitchens across Dubai which are not relevant to this request and issue in this dispute so what Kitopi has previously provided is entirely irrelevant and must be ignored. As Kitopi says it had “daily and weekly temperature checks” in its own separate/private kitchens in Dubai outside the COP28 venue, Kitopi as a catering company is expected to have such documents and communications in respect of its operations in Oasis Food Hall (not some other irrelevant kitchen outside the COP28 venue). These documents will assist the parties and the court in the determination whether Kitopi breached its temperature check and management obligations under the Agreement. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
||
| 26. | Any Documents recording daily fridge and freezer temperatures in Oasis Food Hall. |
Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.2 and 25.5; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.c.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 62; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding temperature monitoring at Oasis Food Hall under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents recording Kitopi conducting daily temperature checks of the fridges and freezers in Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Defendant’s facility was only to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes) with no meals being served in the following day. The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly temperature checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). |
Mons’ reply in request no. 26 above is repeated, save that this request is specifically for the daily records of fridge and freeze temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall (not any such records for one of many other Kitopi kitchens outside the COP28 venue which are not relevant to this request and issue in dispute). Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request allowed. Narrow and specific and relevant. | |
| 27. | Any Documents containing cold holding records, namely documents that track the temperature of items in cold storages and chillers in Oasis Food Hall. | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.2 and 25.5; Kitopi’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 32.c.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 62; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding temperature monitoring in cold storages and chillers under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents regarding Kitopi’s cold holding records of the Products at Oasis Food Hall. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Defendant’s facility was only to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes) with no meals being served in the following day. The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly temperature checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). |
Mons’ reply above in requests 25 and 26 is repeated, save that this request is specifically for cold holding records which are documents which track the temperature of items in cold storages and chillers in Oasis Food Hall (not any such records for one of many other Kitopi kitchens outside the COP28 venue which are not relevant to this request and issue in dispute). Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request allowed – As for 26. | |
| 28. | Any Documents (including any temperature check records) showing the temperatures the Products were kept during transportation of the meal Products. |
Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.2 and 25.5; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 62; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to determining whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding temperature monitoring during transportation under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents regarding Kitopi’s temperature logs/records of the Products during transportation. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant objects to this request on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect assumption that the Claimant was responsible for temperature checks in Oasis Food Hall. All meals were prepared at Kitopi’s central kitchen and delivered prepacked to the event location. The Defendant’s facility was only to assemble the boxes (placing the food items inside the boxes) with no meals being served in the following day. The Claimant has already provided the daily and weekly temperature checks in its central kitchen (where the meal were prepared). |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi carried out temperature monitoring during transportation under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. As Mons notes in its “Comments” section, these transportation temperature logs/records are standard in the industry and Kitopi, as a major catering company, should have kept them and they should be able to easily produce them. Kitopi’s objection is misconceived. Kitopi asserts that Mons was responsible for temperature monitoring in Oasis Food Hall (which is wrong), but that is not the point here and it is not relevant to this request which relates to Kitopi undertaking temperature monitoring during delivery of the Products. That is a wholly different matter and Kitopi appears to be evading providing any materials which is critical to the determination of this issue in dispute. Mons does not request Kitopi’s temperature checks in its own kitchens across Dubai which are not relevant to this request and issue in this dispute so what Kitopi has previously provided is entirely irrelevant and must be ignored. As can be seen, Kitopi is trying to create confusion and muddy waters, but this should not be tolerated. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request allowd – as for 26. | |
| 29. | Any Documents recording of re-heating of food Products at Oasis Food Hall (i.e. reheat food records). | Mons’ POC ¶¶ 25.2 and 25.5; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 62; Dubai Municipality Report dated 5 December 2023; Food Code 2013. |
This request is relevant and material to determining whether Kitopi was in breach of its obligations regarding temperature monitoring in Oasis Food Hall under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents regarding Kitopi’s reheating logs/records of the Products. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The request is based on a misunderstanding of the arrangement between the parties. Initially, the parties agreed that Kitopi would deliver fully assembled meal boxes directly to the event location. However, at a later stage, the Defendant requested that the main meals be reheated prior to service. As a result, Kitopi used the Defendant’s facility solely to assemble and reheat the meal boxes before delivery. The Claimant reasonably believes, in the circumstances, that documents responsive to the request do not exist. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. This request relates to a narrow and specific category of documents that is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, i.e. whether Kitopi carried out temperature monitoring in Oasis Food Hall as required under relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. Kitopi admits that Mons’ “facility” was used to “reheat the meal boxes before delivery”, so it should produce those reheat records (and it must be noted that Kitopi did produce some thawing monitoring records and other records in standard production but these related not checks in its own kitchens across Dubai outside the COP28 event which is not what is requested here). As an industry standard, food catering companies conduct rehearing and keep records of the same as Kitopi appears to have done in its own kitchens, so it should produce documents confirming it did the same in Oasis Food Hall or otherwise admit that it failed to maintain re-heat records to reduce issues and therefore costs in the case. Kitopi should be compelled to search for and produce documents responsive to this request. |
Request allowed – as for 26. | |
| 30. | Any Documents showing that there was any misidentification of mouldy ingredients (i.e. parmesan with truffle). | Mons’ POC ¶ 24.1; Kitopi’s POC ¶ 31.a.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 48.1. |
This request is relevant and material to this dispute because it concerns the core allegation that Kitopi failed to supply products “of satisfactory quality and fit for any purpose” under the Agreement, as the Products delivered by Kitopi were found to be contaminated with mould and were, therefore, not fit for consumption. Kitopi in its POC ¶31.a. denies such allegation and submits that the “…concern about the presence of mould…was likely a misidentification of an ingredient (i.e. parmesan with truffle).” Such Documents would provide further detail and context on the nature of the alleged deficiencies in the Products, help verify the claims and inform the parties regarding the factual matrix surrounding this issue, which will ultimately be determined by the judge in light of all the evidence. This request is for a narrow and very specific documents relating to Kitopi’s allegation of misidentification of ingredients which Kitopi can easily search for, find and produce to Mons. |
The Claimant was not involved in, nor given access to, any investigation or communications regarding the alleged mould incident. The Defendant has not provided any documents or evidence supporting the allegation, which raises questions as to whether the incident may have been a case of misidentification — for example, confusing mould with an ingredient such as truffle parmesan. The Claimant served over 40,000 meals during the Event without receiving any similar complaints, and there is no record of any confirmed quality issue involving mouldy ingredients. Accordingly, the Claimant reasonable believes that it does not have possession, custody or control of documents which are responsive to this request. |
Kitopi’s objection should be overruled. Kitopi has been making allegations that there was a “misidentification…for example, confusing mould with an ingredient such as truffle parmesan”, but it refuses to search for and produce any documents in this regard which is very telling. If Kitopi wants to sustain any such allegation, it should produce documents otherwise its arguments in this regard should be struck out, including as raising such unmeritorious and indefensible statements unnecessarily increases time and costs in this case. Additionally, Mons assertion that it “reasonably believes” that no responsive documents exist against this request when it has failed to conduct any searches whatsoever is unbelievable and must be rejected. Kitopi can only reach this conclusion after explaining what searches it has carried out, e.g. Taleem v National Bonds ¶ 29 (“…a response which states “No documents have been located” is inadequate unless it is known knows [sic] what steps have been taken to locate the documents”). In this case, there has been a total failure to do any search or state what has been done as nothing has been done by Kitopi. Kitopi’s failure should lead to an adverse inference against it in respect of this request and its overall conduct in this case in making unmeritorious and indefensible arguments. Kitopi should be compelled to produce documents relevant against this request or it should abandon these allegations. |
Request denied. Fishing. | |
| 31. | Any Documents showing Kitopi faced issues in respect of its other operations during COP28 from another floor in the same building, including importantly any Dubai Municipality inspections and reports there. | Kitopi’s POC ¶ 10.c.; Mons’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim ¶ 36.3. |
This request is relevant and material to the dispute as it concerns whether Kitopi encountered similar regulatory or operational issues in its other COP28 operations within the same building, beyond the Oasis Food Hall. Any such issues—particularly in Dubai Municipality inspections, findings, or reports—could shed light on systemic failings or broader patterns of non- compliance by Kitopi during the Event. This context would directly inform the factual, legal and other issues in this dispute which will help with the determination of this dispute including whether Kitopi violated legal and regulatory requirements and the Agreement. This request is for a narrow and specific category of documents relating to Documents and Communications regarding any issues Kitopi faced in respect of its other operations in COP28, including any issues involving Dubai Municipality. Kitopi should already have and be able to easily produce these Requested Documents as these records are expected to be kept by food caterings companies. |
The Claimant Objects. The Defendant’s non-compliance with RDC 28.17 and 28.28 is identical to the objections set out with respect to Request 1: (i) it is incredibly broad and unfocussed contrary to the requirements summarised in Taaleem; (ii) no description of a specific document is given in breach of RDC 28.17(1); (iii) no narrow and specific category of documents has been identified in breach of RDC 28.17(2); (iv) relevance and materiality has not been properly explained in breach of RDC 28.17(3); and (v) in light of those failings, an order to produce would be unreasonably burdensome for the purposes of RDC 28.28(3). Further, as regards relevance and materiality, the documents sought are part of a “fishing” exercise concerning information that has no bearing on the Claimant’s performance of its contractual obligations, and which were irrelevant to the Defendant’s decision to terminate the agreement. |
Mons maintains this request but is willing to narrow this down to Kitopi producing documents where Kitopi faced “critical” issues during the COP28 operations. Any Dubai Municipality Report or document showing it faced critical issues is relevant and material and will help inform the issues in this dispute. | Request denied. Fishing | |
