Space Disputes Guide

Space Disputes Guide Edition 1

This guide is prepared to demonstrate the types of disputes relating to the space sector that the DIFC Courts is equipped to hear and determine. The focus of this guide is to provide an insight on the workings of the DIFC Courts, and how a party to a space-related dispute can expect a claim to be progressed. Editions to follow will demonstrate the inner-workings of space-related disputes in general, and the types of legislation that may be applied.

Hello!

YOU ARE… • The Representative of a State • The Representative of a Space Agency • The Representative of a Company (or private Entity) • An Individual YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH… • A State • A national Space Agency • A company (or private entity) • An individual • Not identified

YOUR DISPUTE RELATES TO… [1st level] • The manufacturing of a space object • The launch of a space object • The in-Space navigation of a space object • Other types of operation of a space object • The re-entry of a space object • Other YOUR DISPUTE RELATES TO… [2nd level] • A contractual dispute • A regulatory dispute • A damage indemnification (tort) dispute • A public international dispute (treaty) • Other

YOU CAN BRING YOUR CLAIM TO THE DIFC COURTS The UAE’s DIFC Courts administers a unique English-language common law system, offering swift, independent justice to settle domestic and international commercial or civil disputes. The Courts, based in Dubai, provide certainty through transparent, enforceable judgments from internationally recognised judges, who adhere to the highest global legal standards. The DIFC Courts is an ‘opt-in’ jurisdiction, which means that parties worldwide are free to bring their dispute to be resolved by the Courts, regardless of where they are located.

THE DIFC COURTS – COURTS OF SPACE In 2021, the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Future Foundation embarked on the Courts of Space, a Courts of the Future Initiative. The launch of the project has signalled to the international space community the intent of the UAE to play a leading role in advancing its judicial systems to specifically direct capacity and capability to commercial spacerelated disputes, inviting businesses to ‘opt-in’ to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts for transparent and speedy dispute resolution. The Courts of Space now hosts an international working group of public and private sector bodies and experts tasked with exploring space-related legal innovations and providing an outlook on potential outcomes of scenarios revolving around space-related disputes.

The DIFC Courts also aims to train its judges to become space-related dispute experts after having received courses on space regulations by international bodies and regional agencies.

An integrated space industry, supported by human resources, infrastructure, and scientific research, is under way. The Courts of Space is a global initiative that will operate in parallel, helping to build a new judicial support network to serve the stringent commercial demands of international space exploration in the 21st century.

SCENARIO MAPPING The below displays disputes relating to the space industry and how parties can expect for them to be progressed through the DIFC Courts, under the Courts of Space initiative.

Scenario A: Company A launched a satellite at a cost of approximately USD 200 Million1. After two (2) months of service, the satellite is hit by a one-ounce piece of space debris2 which resulted in the total destruction of the satellite3.

A tracking station which monitors space debris concluded that the piece of space junk originated from an anti-satellite missile fired by State B in 2007, at one of its defunct satellites, which created nearly 3,500 additional fragments of space junk in orbit between 160 kilometres and 2,000 kilometres above the Earth’s surface. Company A intends to file a claim against State B, seeking compensation for the destruction of the satellite. The parties disagree over what is the most appropriate and neutral forum to refer their dispute to, as their ultimate desire is to have said dispute settled in a neutral jurisdiction, by experienced judges, with subject matter expertise, under a system that provides for speedy and transparent justice. Company A then proceeds to bring its claim to the DIFC Courts for adjudication.

Scenario B: Orbit LLC is preparing a vessel to be launched to space, under the directives of The Republic of Galactica to send a mission to the International Space Station. Orbit LLC’s main objective of this mission is to test out new spacesuits manufactured

by Lunar Clothing Limited, in order to proceed with the installation of solar panels in the ISS. Orbit LLC sought a guarantee from Bank InterSpace in order to pay Lunar Clothing Limited for the spacesuits, which was provided by the Bank a month ahead of the vessel launch. Lunar Clothing has learned from media reports that Bank InterSpace had become insolvent, and therefore found the guarantee provided to Lunar Clothing by Orbit LLC to be without value. Orbit LLC refused to return the spacesuits to Lunar Clothing – citing that the vessel launch was scheduled to take place within four (4) days and could not be rescheduled. Lunar Clothing, concerned that Orbit LLC would not be able to fulfil its commitments towards it, obtained advice from its legal team that the best course of action would be to prevent the vessel launch by way of a court order.

As the agreement between Orbit LLC and Lunar Clothing contained a clause by virtue of which any dispute could be resolved by the DIFC Courts, Lunar Clothing proceeded to bring an urgent Part 8 claim seeking injunctive relief from the DIFC Courts.

A satellite launch can range in cost from USD 50 Million to approximately USD 400 Million.

2 At last count there were over 20,000 pieces of space junk larger than a softball, and about 500,000 larger than a marble orbiting Earth.

3 A piece of space debris in Earth orbit can travel at an average velocity of 15,600 mph (25,200 km/h), or 10 times the speed of an average bullet.

1

PROGRESSION OF CLAIMS Scenario A: Part 7

The dispute reflected in Scenario A requires the examination of witnesses and the appointment of experts. The procedure best suited is the Part 7 procedure. The parties can expect the claim to be progressed as follows:

Company A must serve Claim Form and Particulars of Claim within six (6) months of filing the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim

State B to file its responsive expert report within two (2) weeks of Company A’s expert report

Defendant must file and serve Defence within 45 days of service of Claim Form and Particulars of Claim (RDC 9.58)

State B must file and serve Defence within 45 days of service of Claim Form and Particulars of Claim (RDC 9.58)

Witness statements in reply to be filed and served within two (2) weeks of initial exhange Company A to file its expert report to be filed and served within two (2) weeks of evidence stage

Supplemental expert reports to be filed and served within two (2) weeks of State B’s expert report

Experts to meet two (2) weeks after the exchange of expert reports.

Company A must file and serve Reply within 25 days of Defence With at least 15 days’ notice, the Court may fix a case management conference

Case management conference

DIFC Courts makes a document production order three (3) weeks after commencing production proceedings Exchange of witness statements and hearsay notices within ten (10) weeks of the disclosure stage

Pre-trial Review within 28 days of close of expert evidence

Production of documents to take place four (4) weeks after the CMC

All-trial related documents to be lodged within DIFC Courts’ Registry no later than one (1) week before trial

Trial begins

Scenario B:

1 step

Urgent Part 8 Claim The dispute reflected in Scenario B can arise in situations wherein the claimant seeks the Court ’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact, or a Rule or Practice Direction in relation to a specified type of proceedings requires or permits the use of the Part 8 procedure. In this scenario, the claimant would file Part 8 to seek injunctive relief. The claimant can expect the claim to be processed as follows:

2

step

3 step

4 step

Lunar Clothing Limit evidence will normal however, Lunar Cloth

Lunar Clothing Limited’s evidence must b comply with RDC part 9. The claim form m of issue where the defendant is served ou

[NB: The Rules of the DIFC Courts closely resembles CPR r.8.2. CPR r.8.2 cross-refer direction that the time limits under Part 8

Orbit LLC must file an acknowledge of service in Form P8/02 not r.8.13). [NB - where Orbit LLC objects to use of Part 8 Procedure

Should Orbit LLC wish to rely on written evidence, it must submit it when the acknowledge of service 8.13 and 8.26 require that Orbit LLC’s evidence is due to be filed and served within 14 days after serv

6 step

When the Court receives th

ted must file with its claim form, written evidence on which it intends to rely at the time of filing the claim form (RDC r.8.23). [NB lly be in the form of a witness statement or an affidavit (made by a natural person with authority to make the deposition in question); hing Limited may rely on the matters set out in its claim form provided that it has been verified by a statement of truth (RDC r.8.25)].

be served on Orbit LLC with the claim form (unluess the evidence is contained in the claim form itself) (RDC r.8.24). Service must must be served on the defendant within four (4) months if the defendant is within the DIFC or Dubai, or six (6) months from the date ut of the DIFC or Dubai (RDC r.7.20).

y mirror the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“CPR”). While the RDC does not reference time limits for service, RDC r.8.8 very closely rences CPR r.7.5 which sets out timelines for service of a claim form (corresponding to RDC r.7.20). On this basis, it is the Registrar’s 8 of the CPR will apply.

t more than 14 days after service of the claim form AND serve the acknowledgment of serviceon the claimant and any other party (RDC e, the defendant must state its reasons when filing its acknowledgment of service (RDC r.8.17)].

e is filed. If they do so, they must, at the same time, serve a copy of the evidence to evidence Lunar Clothing LLC. Read together, RDC rr. vice of the claim form on Orbit LLC.

5 step

Lunar Clothing Limited may, within 14 days of service of Orbit LLC’s evidence, file and serve (RDC r.8.29) further written evidence in reply (RDC r.8.28).

he acknowledgment of service and any written evidence, it will give directions as to the future management of the case (RDC r.8.18).

Space Disputes Guide Edition 1