December 07, 2020 Court of First Instance -Orders
Claim No: CFI 048/2018
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
SKATTEFORVALTNINGEN (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration)
and
(1) ELYSIUM GLOBAL (DUBAI) LIMITED
(2) ELYSIUM PROPERTIES LIMITED
Defendants
CONSENT ORDER
UPON the parties agreeing the terms of this Order
BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. In this Order:
(a) “Composite Documents” means any electronic document which on Relativity is a single document but which is in fact a composite of several documents. Examples of Composite Documents include, but are not limited to: (i) email chains, being a composite of several distinct emails; and (ii) individual electronic documents that are the product of combining several documents (whether combined electronically or by physically scanning the same);
(b) “the 31 July Order” means the Order of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 31 July 2018;
(c) “the 12 August Order” means the Order of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 12 August 2018;
(d) “Deloitte” means the Privilege Search Team as defined in paragraph 7 of the 31 July Order;
(e) “the TAR Orders” means the Consent Orders dated 20 June 2019 and 6 May 2020;
(f) “Training Sample” has the meaning given in the TAR Orders;
(g) “Quality Control Sample” has the meaning given in the TAR Orders;
(h) “Privilege Review Team” has the meaning given in paragraph 21 of the 31 July Order;
(i) “Privileged” has the meaning given in paragraph 2 of the 31 July Order as further defined in paragraph 5 of the 12 August Order;
(j) “Relativity” means Deloitte’s Relativity document review platform; and
(k) “the Supervising Legal Representative” means Mr Philip Punwar of Baker Botts LLP.
APPLICATION OF THIS ORDER
2. This Order does not apply to the review of any document as part of a Training Sample or Quality Control Sample under the TAR Orders.
3. Subject to paragraph 2, this Order applies to a document where the document is being reviewed on Relativity pursuant to the 31 July Order or any subsequent Order to determine whether the same should be coded “Privileged” and the person reviewing the document concludes that:
(a) the document is a Composite Document; and
(b) part of the Composite Document is Privileged.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, this Order applies whether the document is being reviewed by the Defendants, by the Privilege Review Team or by the Supervising Legal Representative.
5. Nothing in this Order requires the parties or the Supervising Legal Representative to review a document which has already been reviewed under the Court’s previous Orders and whose coding as “Privileged” or “Not Privileged” has been: (a) agreed by the Defendants and the Supervising Legal Representative; (b) determined under the TAR Orders, or (c) determined by the Court.
REDACTION OF COMPOSITE DOCUMENTS
6. Where this Order applies to a document, the reviewer shall:
(a) code the document as “Privileged” and shall apply an additional flag: “Privilege – Redacted”;
(b) redact that part of the document which he or she considers is Privileged using the redaction function on Relativity; and
(c) also apply such flags as defined at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 12 August Order as a relevant to the redacted part of the document.
7. In the event of Defendants dispute, in relation to any document whether paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) of this Order is satisfied, or the extent of any redaction to be applied:
(a) the Supervising Legal Representative shall review the document (if he has not already done so) and seek to agree those matters with the Defendants; and
(b) in the even that the Supervising Legal Representative and the Defendants are unable to agree within a reasonable time, the parties shall have liberty to the apply to the Court for it to determine the same.
RELEASE OF REDACTED DOCUMENTS
8. Documents that are coded “Privilege – Redacted” shall be treated as if they had been coded “Not Privileged” and Deloitte may release such documents to the Claimant on the same terms and in the same manner as it releases documents coded “Not Privileged”.
9. When Deloitte releases a document which contains redactions to the Claimant, Deloitte must ensure that the document is released in such a way and such a manner that the Claimant is unable to see the contents of any redacted part of the document.
INADVERTANT DISCLOSURE AND IRRELEVANT MATERIAL
10. If, upon reviewing a document received pursuant this Order, the Claimant’s lawyers conclude that: (1) the document is Privileged; and (2) the document has been inadvertently provided to the Claimant’s lawyers, the Claimant’s lawyers shall:
(a) immediately notify the Defendants’ lawyers and provide a copy of the document;
(b) cause the document to be retained by Deloitte as if it had been determined to be Privileged;
(c) destroy any copies of the document in the Claimant’s lawyers possession; and
(d) not provide copies of the document to the Claimant.
11. If, upon reviewing a document received pursuant to this Order, the Claimant’s lawyers conclude that a document is irrelevant to these proceedings or any other civil proceedings in relation to the same or related subject matter to these proceedings, the Claimant’s lawyers shall not provide copies of the document to the Claimant and shall destroy forthwith any physical and electronic copies extracted from Relativity.
AGREED VARIATIONS
12. The parties may agree variations to this Order in writing signed by both parties’ legal representatives.
LIBERTY TO APPLY
13. The parties have liberty to apply.
COSTS
14. Costs in the case.
15. The Supervising Legal Representative shall be entitled to his costs of complying with this Order as supervising legal representative.
Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of issue: 7 December 2020
At: 9am
