June 07, 2018 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI-051-2017
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
GLOBEMED GULF HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LLC
and
OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY PSC
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR RICHARD FIELD
UPON the Case Management Order dated 18 March 2018
AND UPON considering the Applications CFI-051-2017/2 filed by the Claimant on 15 May 2018 and CFI-051-2017/3 filed by the Defendant on 17 May 2018 both seeking a de novo review by a Justice of the Court of First Instance of the Order dated 10 May 2018 (amended on 14 May 2018) of Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser on the parties’ requests for the production of documents (the “Original Order”)
AND UPON considering the written submissions of the parties in support of their applications and opposing each other’s applications
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.The Original Order will stand save to the extent that it is amended herein, with the result that under the Original Order the Defendant must produce the documents requested by the Claimant in C 1, C 2, C 3, C 4, C 5, C 6, C 7, C 8, C 9, C 10, C 11 and C 13 of the Claimant’s request for production, and the Claimant shall produce the documents requested by the Defendant with the numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16 and 17.
2. The Defendant shall additionally produce the documents requested by the Claimant in requests C 12 and C 16 and shall produce the documents requested by the Claimant in requests C13, C14, C17, C18, C19, C20, C 23, C24 in accordance with the terms set out in Reasons [A] in respect of each of these 8 requests.
3. The Court rejects the Claimant’s Requests C 15, C 21, C 22 and C 18.
4. The Court rejects the Defendant’s Requests numbered 1, 4, 13 and 14.
5. To the extent that they have not already done so, the Parties must each produce the documents ordered to be produced in the Original Order as set out in paragraph 1 above by 22 June 2018.
6. The Defendant must produce the documents ordered to be produced in paragraph 2 above by 13 July 2018.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 7 June 2018
At: 11am
[A] REASONS IN RESPECT OF CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION
Claimant’s Request
1.C 5
Granted: Relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
2. C 7
Granted: Relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
3. C 11
Granted: Relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
4. C 12
Granted: Relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
5. C 13 and C 14
Granted on grounds of relevance in these terms: The Defendant must produce such documents as show the actual and projected number of written lives and the types of policy for the periods of time stated in the request, with the Defendant being at liberty to redact any other information shown in the documents produced.
Refused: This is not relevant to the issue of quantum because the Claimant’s pleaded entitlement to damages assumes that the Claimant alone would be engaged to perform the services contemplated in the agreement.
Granted: Relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
Granted on grounds of relevance in these terms. The Defendant must produce such documents as show the actual and projected number and value of the patient claims, doctor visits/consultations, diagnostic tests, emergency room claims and pharmacy/medication claims for the periods of time stated in the request, with the Defendant being at liberty to redact any other information shown in the documents produced.
9.C 19 and C 20
Granted on grounds of relevance in these terms. The Defendant must produce such documents as show the actual and projected total number of claims, total incurred claim amounts, loss ratios (on an earned basis), volume discounts, applicable tariffs including Price List) for the periods of time stated in the request, with the Defendant having the liberty to redact any other information shown in the documents produced.
10.C 21, C 22
Refused. In respect of these requests it is for the Claimant to have recourse to its own costing methodologies to estimate what costs it would have incurred in order to provide the services it contends it would have provided but for the Defendant’s alleged renunciation of the agreement.
11. C 23, C 24
Granted on grounds of relevance in these terms. The Defendant must produce such documents as show the actual and projected total number of claims, total incurred claim amounts, loss ratios (on an earned basis), volume discounts, applicable tariffs including Price List) for the periods of time stated in the request, with the Defendant being at liberty to redact any other information shown in the documents produced.
12. C 25
Granted: relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
13. C 26
Granted on grounds of relevance in these terms. The Defendant must produce such documents as show the actual and projected total number of claims, total incurred claim amounts, loss ratios (on an earned basis), volume discounts, applicable tariffs including Price List) for the periods of time stated in the request, with the Defendant being at liberty to redact any other information shown in the documents produced.
14. C 27
Granted: relevant to the issues as pleaded in the request.
15. C 28
Refused: Not relevant to the issues in the proceedings.
[B] REASONS IN RESPECT OF DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION
Defendant’s Request
Refused: To the extent that this request goes to relevant issues in the proceedings, it has already been sufficiently answered by the Claimant in its original response to this request in which it is pleaded that the Claimant has already produced: (i) the Insurance Authority Licence issued to the Claimant on 23 April 2014 and expiring on 22 April 2015 and its renewal expiring on 22 April 2016; (ii) a printout from the DHA website confirming in 2014 the Claimant was successful in obtaining a Health Insurance Permit; (iii) General Circular No. 5 of 2015 issued by the DHA confirming that in 2015 the Claimant was a registered health insurance claims management company with HIP “Unconditional Compliance” status; and (iv) the HAAD licence issued to the Claimant on 27 May 2015.
Refused: request too broad and unfocused.
Refused. Not relevant to the pleaded issues in the case. Business conducted by the Claimant following the alleged renunciation of the agreement will not sufficiently show what business could have been conducted had the agreement remained on foot. Further, the Defendant does not plead any failure by the Claimant to mitigate its loss arising from the alleged repudiatory breach of the agreement, which breach, the Claimant contends, has not been accepted. Still further, compliance with these requests would be disproportionately burdensome on the Claimant.
4.13 Refused. Compliance with this request would be disproportionately burdensome on the Claimant, especially since figures for its costs can be found in the Claimant’s audited financial statements and quarterly management accounts to be produced in response to Request 6.
