Access Group DWC LLC (2) Proex Partners Limited v BLS International FZE [2025] DIFC CFI 091 (11 March 2025)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Dubai International Financial Centre


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Access Group DWC LLC (2) Proex Partners Limited v BLS International FZE [2025] DIFC CFI 091 (11 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_091.html
Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 91, [2025] DIFC CFI 091

[New search] [Help]


CFI 091/2023 (1) Access Group DWC LLC (2) Proex Partners Limited v BLS International FZE

March 11, 2025 court of first instance - Orders

Claim No: CFI 091/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) ACCESS GROUP DWC LLC
(2) PROEX PARTNERS LIMITED

Claimants

and

BLS INTERNATIONAL FZE

Defendant


ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE


UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-091-2023/2 dated 2 January 2025 requesting the Defendant to conduct a reasonable search and produce relevant documents (the “Application”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Witness Statement dated 28 January 2025

AND UPON the Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 3 February 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall carry out a reasonable search to locate documents in each of the categories of Documents 2-18, 20 and 22, set out in the Claimants’ Requests to Produce.

2. The Defendant shall produce the documents within 7 days of the date of this Order and verify compliance by way of Document Production Statement in accordance with RDC 28.42-45.

3. The Defendant may redact commercially sensitive portions of the documents, provided that the redactions do not obscure information relevant to the dispute.

4. The Claimants shall retain the right to challenge the adequacy of the Defendant’s production or redactions by way of further application if necessary.

5. The Defendant shall pay the Claimants’ Costs of the Application, to be assessed by the Registrar on the standard basis if not otherwise agreed.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 11 March 2025
At: 11am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Defendants make three general points in opposition to the Claimants’ request: that post-termination documents are irrelevant; that disclosure is precluded by duties of confidentiality owed to third parties; and that requests “referencing” or “related to” Cyprus are “inapplicable” because the relevant contract is governed by English law.

2. I reject these general points as a complete answer to the Claimants’ Application. The Cyprus point is simply not understood. Post-termination documents may or may not be relevant – it cannot be said on a general level that no documents post-termination are relevant to the issues in dispute, it is necessary to consider the particular documents and the nature of the dispute. As to duties of confidentiality allegedly owed to third parties – whether the objection is put under RDC 28.28(2) or (5) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) – it is inherently unlikely that the whole of any document will contain confidential information, and there are ways of excluding particularly sensitive information by redaction, limiting access, anonymisation and the like which allow disclosure of the substance of the document and preserve the integrity of the disclosure process. A broad statement that documents are confidential will not do – any claim to confidentiality must be limited to what is said to be really necessary and an explanation put forward as to why it is said to be necessary.

3. I turn to deal with the specific requests. I set out my reasons briefly.

4. Request 1 was not insisted on by the Claimants. I say nothing more about it.

5. Requests 2-6 concern documents, including correspondence and other communications, during the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023, said to be potentially relevant to the Claimants’ case that the Defendant breached the noncompete agreements in the Spanish and Cyprus contracts and/or was acting in bad faith when purporting to terminate those contracts. Objection is taken by the Defendants on the broad grounds summarised above, but those objections have been overtaken, to some extent at least, by an offer from the Defendants set out in a Witness Statement of Syed Mujtaba Hussain, their solicitor. I am persuaded that the Requests should be allowed in full. If there are issues of confidentiality as claimed, these should be identified and explained with precision and the matter dealt with in the first instance by redaction of material said to require confidentiality protection. Any redactions of this material must be explained on an individual basis so as to allow the Claimants to consider whether they are willing to accept it or whether they wish to apply to the Court for further orders. I reject the Defendants’ argument that the date range is too broad – correspondence and other documents before and after the period of alleged breach are likely to throw light on what was going on at the critical time.

6. Request 7 is not objected to in principle, save for the argument (which I reject for the same reasons as above) that the date range is too broad. It is said that all relevant documents within this Request have been disclosed, but that is not a reason for refusing to make the Order – those matters can be set out in the Document Production Statement.

7. Request 9 relates to recruitment activities undertaken by a third party allegedly targeting the Claimants’ staff. It clearly falls within the Claimants’ case that the Defendants breached the non-compete agreements. I reject, for the same reasons as set out above, the Defendants’ criticism of the date range.

8. Requests 10 and 11 raise similar issues and should be dealt with in the same way.

9. Requests 12-14 concern the activities of three individuals allegedly sent by the Defendants to undertake certain activities in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Ghana. It is accepted by the Defendants that one of those individuals worked for them in Saudi Arabia during 2023 and went there to explore the setting up of a new business. This is obviously relevant. So, arguably, is the role played by the other two individuals. The date range objection fails for the same reasons as before.

10. Request 15 relates to discussions or agreements between the Defendant and the Spanish Government relating to the change of sub-contractors at its visa application centres. The request is for documents relating to discussions with the Government – the agreements themselves have apparently already been disclosed. Such documents are clearly relevant. The Request is objected to on grounds of confidentiality. It is said that the Defendants are prohibited by the Spanish Ministry from disclosing any such communications. I reject this as a blanket defence. It is not clear to me that the Spanish Government confidentiality clauses relied on by the Defendants preclude the Defendants from disclosing this information. And I have no reason to think that any commercially sensitive information cannot be protected by appropriate redactions, on the same basis as above.

11. The objection to Request 16 (apart from those applying to almost all requests) is that, according to the Defendants, these documents are in the Claimants’ possession. The Claimant denies this. The best course is to order production.

12. Request 17 raises a similar point, but the Claimants’ say that the documents sought are those not within their possession, such as the Defendants’ own internal documents and communications. I shall order production.

13. Request 18 seeks documents “relating to” the Defendants’ demands for payment and the reasons therefor. The objection that such documents would already be in the hands of the Claimants ignores the fact that what is sought are not the demands themselves, which the Claimants obviously have, but internal documents in the hands of the Defendants casting light on the reasons for such demands and the basis for them.

14. Request 19 – no further documents are sought by the Claimants, so no order is required.

15. As to Request 20, while it is true, as Mr Hussain says in his Witness Statement, that the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties after the main contract expired in February 2023 is a matter of inference from what was said and done between the parties, communications with others can often throw light on the matter. In my view this is a valid Request. I am sceptical about the argument by Mr Hussain in para.42 of his Witness Statement as to the breadth of the Request.

16. Request 21 – the Defendants are willing to give these documents so no decision is required.

17. Request 22: on the basis of what Mr Brooks says in para. 29 of his Second Witness Statement it is difficult to accept that there has yet been full disclosure.

18. Accordingly, I shall make an Order in substantially the terms requested by the Claimants.

19. The Claimants have been successful in this matter. They should have their costs to be assessed by the Registrar on the standard basis if not agreed.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_091.html