TVM CAPITAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2015] DIFC CA 006 — Consent order for costs settlement (09 March 2015)

This consent order marks the final resolution of the protracted costs dispute between TVM Capital Healthcare Partners and Ali Akbar Hashemi, effectively terminating the detailed assessment process following the conclusion of the underlying litigation.

What was the specific monetary dispute regarding costs in TVM Capital Healthcare Partners v Ali Akbar Hashemi that necessitated a consent order?

The litigation between TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited and Ali Akbar Hashemi originated in the Court of First Instance under claim number CFI-045-2012. Following a judgment delivered by Justice Roger Giles on 22 May 2014, the Claimant was awarded costs, albeit subject to specific deductions. This initial award was subsequently reviewed by the Court of Appeal, which issued an order on 25 December 2014, upholding the primary judgment while varying certain aspects of the costs entitlement.

The dispute reached a critical juncture when the Claimant initiated formal detailed assessment proceedings to quantify the exact recoverable costs for both the first instance and appellate stages. Rather than proceeding to a full judicial determination of these costs, the parties reached a negotiated settlement. The court formalized this agreement through a consent order, which stipulated:

The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of US$ 650,000 by no later than 18 March 2015, in full and final settlement of all costs asserted by the Claimant in the first instance proceedings and the appeal and the record shall reflect the satisfaction of all costs upon such payment being made.

Which judicial body and registrar were responsible for issuing the consent order in CA 006/2014?

The consent order was issued by the DIFC Courts of Appeal on 9 March 2015. The administrative issuance of the order was handled by Assistant Registrar Natasha Bakirci, confirming the finality of the settlement reached between the parties on 4 March 2015.

What were the respective positions of TVM Capital Healthcare Partners and Ali Akbar Hashemi regarding the assessment of costs?

TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited, having secured a favorable judgment in the Court of First Instance and a variation in the Court of Appeal, sought to recover the entirety of its legal expenditure incurred across both levels of the DIFC judicial hierarchy. Their position was predicated on the entitlement to costs as established by the previous rulings of Justice Roger Giles and the Court of Appeal.

Conversely, Ali Akbar Hashemi, as the Defendant and Appellant, sought to mitigate the financial burden of the costs award. By entering into the consent order, the parties avoided the uncertainty and further legal expense associated with a protracted detailed assessment process. The agreement reflects a compromise where the Defendant accepted a fixed liability of US$ 650,000, thereby capping his exposure and allowing both parties to bypass the rigorous scrutiny of individual billable items that would have otherwise occurred in the assessment proceedings.

What was the precise legal question the Court of Appeal had to address regarding the finality of the costs assessment?

The court was tasked with determining whether to approve a settlement agreement that would supersede the ongoing detailed assessment proceedings. The doctrinal issue centered on the court’s power to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to dismiss pending assessment proceedings in favor of a global settlement reached by the parties. By accepting the consent order, the court effectively validated the parties' autonomy to resolve the quantification of costs without requiring the court to adjudicate on the reasonableness of every individual item of legal expenditure.

How did the court exercise its discretion to resolve the costs dispute through the consent order?

The court exercised its authority by acknowledging the agreement reached by the parties on 4 March 2015. By formalizing this agreement, the court ensured that the litigation reached a definitive end, preventing further judicial resources from being consumed by the assessment process. The reasoning followed the principle of party autonomy in civil litigation, where the court facilitates the resolution of disputes through consent when the parties have reached a mutually acceptable financial outcome.

The court’s decision to dismiss the assessment proceedings was a direct consequence of the settlement, as articulated in the order:

The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of US$ 650,000 by no later than 18 March 2015, in full and final settlement of all costs asserted by the Claimant in the first instance proceedings and the appeal and the record shall reflect the satisfaction of all costs upon such payment being made.

Which specific DIFC statutes and procedural rules were relevant to the assessment of costs in this matter?

The assessment of costs in the DIFC is governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those pertaining to the detailed assessment of costs. While the order itself is a product of consent, it operates within the framework of the RDC, which provides the mechanism for parties to claim, challenge, and ultimately settle costs. The underlying authority for the costs award itself stems from the court's general powers under the DIFC Courts Law to award costs to the successful party, as exercised by Justice Roger Giles in CFI-045-2012.

How did the court utilize the precedents established in CFI-045-2012 and CA-006-2014 to reach this settlement?

The court utilized the previous judgments in CFI-045-2012 and CA-006-2014 as the foundational basis for the settlement. The judgment of Justice Roger Giles established the Claimant's right to recover costs, and the Court of Appeal’s order of 25 December 2014 refined the scope of that recovery. These precedents provided the "ceiling" and the legal justification for the costs claim, which the parties used as a benchmark to negotiate the final US$ 650,000 figure. Without these established rights to costs, the parties would have lacked the necessary leverage to reach a settlement of this nature.

What was the final disposition and relief ordered by the Court of Appeal in CA 006/2014?

The Court of Appeal ordered the Defendant, Ali Akbar Hashemi, to pay the Claimant, TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited, the sum of US$ 650,000. This payment was mandated to be completed by 18 March 2015. Upon the fulfillment of this payment, the court ordered that the detailed assessment proceedings initiated in both CFI-045-2012 and CA-006-2014 be dismissed, thereby providing a full and final discharge of the Defendant’s liability regarding costs.

What are the practical implications for practitioners regarding the use of consent orders for costs settlement?

This case serves as a practical example of how parties can utilize consent orders to terminate costly and time-consuming assessment proceedings. For practitioners, the takeaway is that the DIFC Courts are highly supportive of parties reaching a global settlement on costs, even after assessment proceedings have commenced. Litigants should anticipate that once a consent order is entered, the court will strictly enforce the payment deadline and the dismissal of the underlying assessment, effectively barring any further attempts to reopen the costs issue.

Where can I read the full judgment in TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited v Ali Akbar Hashemi [2015] DIFC CA 006?

The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/ca-0062014-tvm-capital-healthcare-partners-limited-v-ali-akbar-hashemi

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) – Provisions regarding detailed assessment of costs.
• DIFC Courts Law – General powers of the court to award and manage costs.