Privacy Settings

Claim No. CFI 005/2021

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) ANOOP KUMAR LAL
(2) PAUL PATRICK HENNESSY

Claimants

and

DONNA BENTON

Defendant

DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE ORDER OF JUSTICE ROGER GILES

UPON the Case Management Order of H.E Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 14 July 2021

AND UPON reviewing the Claimants’ Request to Produce filed by way of Application Notice No. CFI-005-2021/4 dated 18 August 2021

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Request to Produce dated 18 August 2021

AND UPON reviewing the Claimants’ Objections to Request to Produce dated 26 August 2021

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Objections to Request to Produce dated 25 August 2021

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Order that each of the Claimants:

2. Reserve liberty to applying in the event of dispute over redaction in relation to Document 2 in the Claimants’ Request for Production.

Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of issue: 31 August 2021
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The objections to the parties’ Requests to Produce have been referred to me for determination. My determinations are as follows.

Claimants’ Requests

2. The Claimants have requested production of five documents or categories of document.

3. The response to Document 1 is that no such document exists. While the Defendant goes on to refer to an expert determination and say that she will produce documents responsive to the request, I do not understand that to be inconsistent with the response: the foreshadowed production is of the expert determination, which is not the document requested. No reason appears to require further confirmation of the response.

4. The documents in the Document 2 category are to be produced, with redaction, save for the Completion Statements as to which the response is that they do not exist. No reason appears to require further confirmation of that response.

5. The Defendant’ objection to Documents 3, 4, and 5 is correct. These are not requests for documents within RDC Part 28. They require that the Defendant create documents by way of affidavit, or that a third party provide a document or documents.

6. No Document Production Order is made. Liberty to apply is reserved in the event of dispute over redaction in relation to Document 2.

Defendant’s Requests

7. The Defendant has requested production of eleven categories of document. The Claimants do not object on any of the grounds in RDC 28.28. Their response to all the requests is that the documents are not in their possession because they “no longer have access to company emails of Entertainer FZ LLC “.

8. Implicit in this is that documents in the requested categories exist, but that they take the form of emails in the email system of Entertainer FZ LLC and that the Claimants do not have any electronic or paper copies of the documents. From the nature of the conduct alleged by the Defendant to which the requested documents have apparent relevance, the Defendant is entitled to confirmation of the response and that documents within the categories are not in the Claimants’ possession, custody or power. A Document Production Order is therefore made, in order that there be such confirmation or that on further consideration documents within the categories are produced.

9. Compliance with the Document Production Order should be verified by separate Document Production Statements of each of the Claimants. From the terms of their response, it is appropriate to remind the Claimants that the required disclosure is not only of documents in their possession, but of documents in their possession, custody or control; and that the order also addresses documents which were, but are longer, in their possession, custody or control. In accordance with the Case Management Order, the Document Production Statements should be filed and served within 14 days.

Orders

10. I make the following orders: