What was the total value of the costs claimed by Mr Oran and Oaken against Oved in CA 004/2025?
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal costs incurred by the Appellants, Mr Oran and Oaken, following their successful appeal against an anti-suit injunction obtained by the Respondent, Oved. The Appellants submitted two Statements of Costs covering the period from the initial return of the injunction on 5 February 2025 through the conclusion of the appeal hearing on 16 October 2025. The combined total of these statements amounted to AED 759,731.93, a significant portion of which comprised disbursements to English solicitors and counsel.
In the final order, H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin assessed these costs, ultimately awarding the Appellants a total of AED 720,000. The court rejected the Respondent's attempts to characterize the jurisdictional objection as unnecessary, affirming the Appellants' right to recover costs for the entirety of the proceedings. As stated in the order:
The Appellant’s costs of the proceedings to be paid by the Respondent pursuant to the orders of the Court of Appeal issued on 20 October 2025 are quantified and assessed in the amount of AED 720,000.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in the DIFC Court of Appeal for CA 004/2025?
The assessment of costs was conducted by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin, sitting in the DIFC Court of Appeal. The order was issued on 8 December 2025, following the Court of Appeal’s earlier substantive decision on 20 October 2025, which had discharged the anti-suit injunction and upheld the Appellants' jurisdictional objection. The Chief Justice determined the quantum of costs through a process of immediate assessment on the papers, following a directed timetable for the exchange of submissions between the parties.
How did the Respondent, Oved, argue that the Appellants' costs should be reduced in CA 004/2025?
The Respondent, Oved, advanced several arguments to minimize the costs payable to the Appellants. Primarily, Oved contended that the Appellants’ jurisdictional objection was an unnecessary procedural step, suggesting that the jurisdictional issues could have been subsumed within the appeal against the anti-suit injunction itself. Furthermore, the Respondent challenged the adequacy of the particularization in the Appellants' Statements of Costs, specifically regarding the lack of differentiation between various aspects of the proceedings and the lump-sum nature of the disbursements paid to English legal counsel.
The Respondent also attempted to leverage the fact that it had incurred substantial costs of its own during the litigation, filing six separate Statements of Costs totaling over AED 1.3 million. As noted in the court's summary of the Respondent's position:
The Respondent contends that the Appellants’ objection to jurisdiction was unnecessary and that the Appellants’ costs should be reduced accordingly.
The Respondent contends that it would have been sufficient for the Appellants to raise jurisdictional issues in their appeal against the anti-suit injunction.
What was the precise doctrinal issue regarding the necessity of the jurisdictional objection in CA 004/2025?
The court had to determine whether the Appellants were entitled to recover costs for a distinct jurisdictional objection, or whether such costs were unreasonable because the issue could have been addressed solely within the scope of the appeal against the anti-suit injunction. The doctrinal question turned on whether the jurisdictional challenge was a necessary and appropriate procedural step to protect the Appellants' rights, or an excessive expenditure of resources. The court ultimately affirmed that the Appellants were justified in pursuing the objection, noting that they were forced to respond to proceedings initiated in a forum that lacked the requisite jurisdiction.
How did Chief Justice Wayne Martin apply the "sense check" test to the quantum of costs in CA 004/2025?
In assessing the reasonableness of the AED 759,731.93 claimed by the Appellants, the Chief Justice utilized the Respondent’s own expenditure as a benchmark. By comparing the Appellants' costs against the AED 1,316,016.06 claimed by the Respondent, the court concluded that the Appellants' figures were within a reasonable range. The court also addressed the Respondent's complaint regarding the lack of itemized fee notes for English counsel, ruling that while such detail is usually helpful, the court could verify the reasonableness of the disbursements by comparing them to the rates and amounts the Respondent itself had paid to its own English legal team.
Accordingly, the costs claimed by the Respondent provide a sense check in relation to the quantum of the costs claimed by the Appellants and suggest that the quantum of those costs is within the reasonable range.
Which DIFC and English authorities were cited regarding the Court's jurisdiction and costs?
The court relied on established principles regarding the DIFC Court's injunctive powers and the recovery of costs. While the primary focus was the assessment of quantum, the court referenced the underlying jurisdictional framework established in cases such as Brookfield Multiplex v DIFC Investments and Ledger v Leeor, which clarify the court's jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions. Additionally, the court drew upon the principles found in Lateef v Leila regarding the source of the court's jurisdiction to grant freezing orders, reinforcing the distinction between the court's power to grant relief and the jurisdictional basis for doing so. The English authority Broad Idea v Convoy Collateral Ltd was also considered in the context of the court's injunctive reach.
How did the court distinguish the relevance of subsequent English proceedings in CA 004/2025?
The Respondent argued that the Appellants' subsequent success in obtaining an anti-arbitration injunction from the English Court was relevant to the assessment of costs in the DIFC proceedings. The Chief Justice summarily rejected this argument, clarifying that the procedural history of the DIFC litigation must be viewed in isolation from later developments in other jurisdictions. The court emphasized that the focus of the assessment was strictly on the costs incurred in responding to the proceedings brought by the Respondent in the DIFC, which the court had already determined were brought without jurisdiction.
The Respondent further contends that the fact that the Appellants obtained an anti-arbitration injunction from the English Court subsequent to the decision of the Court of Appeal is somehow relevant to the assessment of the costs to be awarded to the Appellants in these proceedings. However, steps taken in the English proceedings subsequent to the determination of these proceedings are obviously irrelevant to costs issues in these proceedings.
What was the final disposition and order regarding costs in CA 004/2025?
The Court of Appeal ordered the Respondent, Oved, to pay the Appellants’ costs in the amount of AED 720,000. This amount covered the entirety of the proceedings, including the Discharge Application, the Jurisdictional Objection, and the various permission applications. The court further ordered that if the payment was not made within fourteen days of the order, interest would accrue on the outstanding balance at a rate of 9% per annum. The court acknowledged the burden of prosecution carried by the Appellants throughout the appeal process.
While it is noted that the Respondent carried the burden of initiating the proceedings, it is also to be noted that the Appellants carried the burden of prosecuting the appeal and the objection to jurisdiction.
What are the practical implications for practitioners regarding jurisdictional objections in the DIFC?
This order serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court will not penalize parties for bringing necessary jurisdictional objections, even if the Respondent argues that such issues could have been consolidated into other appeals. Practitioners should note that the court is willing to perform an "immediate assessment" of costs on the papers, utilizing the opposing party's own costs as a "sense check" for reasonableness. Furthermore, the court has clarified that while disbursements to foreign counsel are often claimed as lump sums, practitioners should be prepared to provide evidence of hourly rates and fee notes if those disbursements constitute a significant portion of the total claim.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mr Oran (2) Oaken v Oved [2025] DIFC CA 004?
The full order and reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/ca-0042025-1-mr-oran-2-oaken-v-oved
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Brookfield Multiplex v DIFC Investments | [2016] DIFC CA 001 | Jurisdictional basis for anti-suit injunctions |
| Ledger v Leeor | [2017] DIFC CA 001 | Jurisdictional basis for anti-suit injunctions |
| Lateef v Leila | [2015] DIFC CA 002 | Source of jurisdiction for injunctive relief |
| Broad Idea v Convoy Collateral Ltd | [2021] UKPC 24 | Principles of injunctive relief |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Arbitration Law
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)