Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v NMC Healthcare Ltd [2025] ADGMCFI 0004 (12 March 2025)
Expert evidence of UAE law is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. The Court can manage UAE law issues through legal submissions, translations, and directions, achieving fairness, efficiency, and proportionality. The additional cost and complexity of expert evidence are not justified, and the issues can be resolved justly without it.
- Citation
- [2025] ADGMCFI 0004
- Parties
- Claimant: Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC; Defendant: Prasanth Manghat; Claimant/applicant: NMC Healthcare Limited (in administration) (subject to a deed of company arrangement); Claimant/applicant: NMC Holding Limited (in administration); Claimant/applicant: Richard Dixon Fleming (in his capacity as Joint Administrator of the First and Second Claimants/Applicants); Claimant/applicant: Benjamin Thom Cairns (in his capacity as Joint Administrator of the First and Second Claimants/Applicants); Defendant/respondent: Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty; Defendant/respondent: Prasanth Manghat; Defendant/respondent: Bank of Baroda
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial and Civil (multiple Consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence of UAE Law at Trial
- Outcome
- Applications by Claimants for permission to adduce expert evidence of UAE law refused; application by Baroda for UAE law to be dealt with by submissions granted; costs in the proceedings.
- Legal Topics
- Expert Evidence, Foreign Law, Case Management, Costs, Proportionality, Impartiality of Experts
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC
Claimant
Prasanth Manghat
Defendant
NMC Healthcare Limited (in administration) (subject to a deed of company arrangement)
Claimant/applicant
NMC Holding Limited (in administration)
Claimant/applicant
Richard Dixon Fleming (in his capacity as Joint Administrator of the First and Second Claimants/Applicants)
Claimant/applicant
Benjamin Thom Cairns (in his capacity as Joint Administrator of the First and Second Claimants/Applicants)
Claimant/applicant
Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty
Defendant/respondent
Prasanth Manghat
Defendant/respondent
Bank of Baroda
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Civil (multiple Consolidated Actions) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence of UAE Law at Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether parties should be permitted to call expert evidence of UAE law at trial or whether UAE law issues should be determined by legal submissions
- 2 Whether expert evidence is 'reasonably required' to resolve the proceedings under ADGM CPR Rule 142
- 3 Whether the number and complexity of UAE law issues necessitate expert evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Expert evidence of UAE law is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. The Court can manage UAE law issues through legal submissions, translations, and directions, achieving fairness, efficiency, and proportionality. The additional cost and complexity of expert evidence are not justified, and the issues can be resolved justly without it.
Court Disposition
Applications by Claimants for permission to adduce expert evidence of UAE law refused; application by Baroda for UAE law to be dealt with by submissions granted; costs in the proceedings.
Orders
- Application Notice filed by the NMC Claimants on 14 February 2025 and the Application Notice filed by ADCB on 14 February 2025 seeking permission to adduce expert evidence of UAE Law are refused.
- Application Notice filed by Baroda on 25 February 2025 seeking a direction that UAE Law be dealt with by submissions is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment