July 02, 2026 Court of First Instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 087/2025
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
PHENIX
Claimant
and
PATTON
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE
UPON the Case Management Order dated 11 February 2026 (the “Case Management Order”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-087-2025/1 dated 1 May 2026 seeking a document production order (the “Application”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Evidence in Answer dated 1 June 2026
AND UPON the Claimant’s Evidence in Reply dated 8 June 2026
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Document Production Orders
Request 5
1. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents responsive to Request 5, including the email accounts and files of relevant custodians involved in the preparation of the agreement, including HR personnel and previously identified individuals;
(b) produce to the Claimant any documents located as a result of that search; and
(c) if no further documents are located, confirm that fact and that all documents responsive to Request 5 within its possession, custody or control have been produced.
Request 7
2. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents responsive to Request 7, including:
(i) the email accounts of Pama;
(ii) custodians involved in bonus or financial decisions, including finance personnel and senior management, including Pavel; and
(iii) appropriate search terms including “Phenix”, “Phenix”, “bonus” and “profit share”;
(b) produce any documents located as a result of that search; and
(c) confirm whether any WhatsApp or other messaging communications once existed and, if so, explain what has happened to them if no longer within its control.
Request 8
3. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents responsive to Request 8, including relevant HR and finance custodians and individuals involved in preparation or approval of the settlement;
(b) produce any documents located; and
(c) where documents are withheld on grounds of privilege, identify those documents or categories and state the grounds relied upon.
Request 9
4. The Defendant shall confirm:
(a) that no further documents exist recording the Claimant’s accrued annual leave beyond those already disclosed; and
(b) that no documents exist recording accrued annual leave during the period of consultancy with Patton Lebanon.
Request 12
5. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents responsive to Request 12, including relevant underwriting, finance and management custodians (including Pascual) and appropriate search terms extending beyond the original subject line;
(b) produce any documents located; and
(c) if no further documents are located, confirm that fact.
Request 16
6. The Defendant shall:
(a) confirm whether the documents disclosed in response to Requests 44–51 constitute all documents relied upon to derive the figures in the relevant spreadsheet;
(b) to the extent that any material category of deduction (including operating expenses) is not supported by documents already disclosed, carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents providing a breakdown of that category; and
(c) produce any documents located, or confirm if none exist.
Request 17
7. The Defendant shall:
(a) confirm whether the documents disclosed in response to Requests 44–51 constitute all documents relied upon to derive the figures in the spreadsheet referred to in Request 17;
(b) to the extent that any material category of deduction (including operating expenses) is not supported by documents already disclosed, carry out a reasonable and proportionate search for documents providing a breakdown of that category; and
(c) produce any documents located, or confirm if none exist.
Request 18
8. The Defendant shall confirm:
(a) that it has carried out a reasonable search for documents supporting the figures in Document 39 (2025);
(b) that the documents already produced constitute the documents relied upon to support those figures; and
(c) that no further such documents have been identified.
Request 21
9. The Defendant shall confirm:
(a) that it has carried out a reasonable and proportionate search for communications falling within Request 21; and
(b) that no further non-privileged responsive documents are in its possession, custody or control.
Request 22
10. The Defendant shall provide details of the custodians, repositories, date ranges and search methodology used in relation to documents concerning the Claimant’s employment entitlements, and confirm whether any further responsive documents were identified or whether any are no longer within its possession, custody or control.
Request 23
11. The Defendant shall state:
(a) the repository searched, date range, and search methodology used; and
(b) whether any responsive WhatsApp messages formerly existed and, if so, what has happened to them.
Request 24 – Document Production Order
12. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search of the email repositories of Parrie, Pascuel, relevant claims personnel and any other directly relevant repository; and
(b) produce any documents located.
Request 34
13. The Defendant shall:
(a) carry out a reasonable and proportionate search limited to:
(i) board minutes or equivalent governance records; and
(ii) HR records concerning transfers or movements of employees between BRM Lebanon and the Defendant; and
(b) produce any documents located.
Requests 35, 38, 40
14. The Defendant shall verify its disclosure position in respect of each of these requests.
Requests 41–43
15. The Defendant shall state:
(a) the custodians searched;
(b) the repositories searched;
(c) the date ranges and search terms used; and
(d) that all documents within its possession, custody or control falling within the scope of each request have been produced and that no further such communications exist.
Request 50
16. The Defendant shall:
(a) produce the underlying datasets, system extracts, or equivalent structured materials showing doubtful receivables for each underwriting year from 2013 to 2025; and
(b) confirm that all such datasets within its possession, custody or control have been produced and whether any such data no longer exists.
Request 51
17. The Defendant shall identify and explain the documents disclosing operating expenses, and confirm whether any further structured breakdown exists and whether all such documents have been produced.
Request 53
18. The Defendant shall state:
(a) the custodians and repositories searched;
(b) the scope of the searches undertaken, including date ranges and search terms; and
(c) that all communications within its possession, custody or control relating to the treatment, adjustment or allocation of doubtful receivables affecting the Claimant’s entitlements have been produced and that no further such communications exist.
Requests 56–62:
19. The Defendant shall:
(a) produce the original or native version of each “Phenix Bonus Calculation” (2019–2025); and
(b) confirm that each native document is the original file used for the calculation, identify where the underlying data is found, and confirm that no further supporting datasets or documents exist.
Requests 69–73:
20. The Defendant shall, in respect of each request:
(a) identify the custodians and repositories searched;
(b) describe the scope of the searches undertaken; and
(c) confirm that all documents or communications within its possession, custody or control falling within the scope of the request have been produced and that no further such materials exist, subject to any claim for privilege, which shall be identified by category and basis.
B. Time for Compliance
21. The Defendant shall comply with the Document Production Orders in Section A within 21 days of the date of this Order.
C. Verification
22. Compliance with the Document Production Orders shall be verified by a Document Production Statement, or such number of statements as the Defendant considers appropriate, served within the same period, in accordance with RDC 28.42–28.44 and verified by a statement of truth.
D. General
23. Save as provided above, the Claimant’s Application is refused.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 2 July 2026
At: 9am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant has applied for document production orders following the exchange of Requests to Produce and the parties’ submissions in a Redfern Schedule.
2. The Application concerns the proper scope of disclosure under Rule Part 28 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) in circumstances where the Claimant seeks further documents and the Defendant contends that it has complied with its disclosure obligations.
3. The Court has determined each request individually by reference to the governing principles of relevance, materiality and proportionality, and the obligation to carry out reasonable and proportionate searches.
Procedural History
4. By a Case Management Order dated 11 February 2026, the Court made directions for the production of documents. Paragraphs 9 to 14 of that Order provided for standard production, the making of Requests to Produce, the formulation of objections, and the bringing of any application for document production by way of a Redfern Schedule.
5. In summary:
(a) the parties were required to give standard production by 9 March 2026;
(b) Requests to Produce were to be made by 30 March 2026;
(c) the responding party was required to state any objections by 20 April 2026;
(d) any application for document production was to be made by 11 May 2026 in the form of a Redfern Schedule; and
(e) the Court would determine any such application, with compliance to be verified by a Document Production Statement.
6. In accordance with those directions, the Claimant served a Request to Produce. The Defendant responded to the requests, objecting to a number of them. The Claimant thereafter produced a Redfern Schedule which set out:
(a) documents or category of documents requested (the requests);
(b) relevance and materiality according to the Claimant;
(c) the Defendant’s responses and objections;
(d) the Claimant’s replies to any objections; and
(e) the Defendant’s replies to the Claimant’s objections.
7. The Redfern Schedule thereby crystallised the issues in dispute on the document production application.
8. The Redfern Schedule is annexure A to these reasons.
Decision
9. The Court has determined each of the disputed requests by reference to the Redfern Schedule and the parties’ written submissions.
10. The Court’s approach has been to consider, in relation to each request:
(a) whether the documents sought are relevant and material to issues arising on the pleadings;
(b) whether the request, as framed, is sufficiently specific and appropriately confined;
(c) whether the request is proportionate having regard to the nature and importance of the issues; and
(d) whether the responding party has demonstrated that it has carried out a reasonable and proportionate search.
11. Where those criteria are satisfied, the Court has made Document Production Orders requiring the Defendant to:
(a) produce specified documents or classes of documents; and/or
(b) carry out further reasonable and proportionate searches directed to identified custodians, repositories or issues; and
(c) produce any documents located as a result of such searches, or confirm that no further documents have been identified.
12. Where the Court was not satisfied that the request met those criteria, or where the Defendant had already complied with its disclosure obligations, the Court has declined to make further orders.
13. In a number of instances, the Court has required the Defendant to verify its disclosure position, including where:
(a) the existence of further documents could not be established but some concern arose as to completeness;
(b) the adequacy of searches required confirmation; or
(c) the issue was sufficiently material to warrant formal verification.
14. The detailed determination of each request is set out in the Court’s decision on the Redfern Schedule, which is annexure B to these reasons. That decision explains, in respect of each request, whether a Document Production Order is made or refused and the scope of any order made.
15. The operative orders giving effect to those determinations are set out below.
Costs
16. The Court makes no immediate order as to costs.
17. If either party seeks an order as to costs of the document production application, that party shall, within 14 days of this judgment:
(a) file and serve a short minute of the order sought;
(b) file and serve written submissions not exceeding five pages in length; and
(c) file and serve any witness statement relied upon in support of the application.
18. Any responding submissions shall be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.
Orders
19. The orders are as set out in the Order made consequential upon these reasons.
