Registrar Nour Hineidi grants an application for an interim payment on account of costs, mandating that Al Rihab Real Estate Company pay USD 222,651.76 to Emirates NBD Bank following the submission of a Draft Bill of Costs.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the interim payment of costs in Al Rihab Real Estate Company v Emirates NBD Bank?
The dispute centered on the procedural requirement for the Appellant, Al Rihab Real Estate Company, to satisfy a portion of the legal costs incurred by the Respondent, Emirates NBD Bank, prior to the final assessment of the total bill. Following the conclusion of substantive proceedings in CA 006/2020, the Respondent submitted a Draft Bill of Costs on 26 January 2022. The Respondent subsequently filed a request with the Registry seeking an immediate interim payment on account of those costs.
The Registrar determined that the Respondent was entitled to receive 50% of the total costs claimed in the Draft Bill. This resulted in a court-ordered payment of USD 222,651.76. The order serves as a mechanism to ensure that the prevailing party does not remain out-of-pocket for significant legal expenditures while the formal taxation or assessment process of the full bill remains pending.
This amount represents 50% of the total amount claimed by the Respondent in its Draft Bill.
Which judicial officer presided over the order for costs in CA 006/2020 and in what capacity?
The order was issued by Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Courts. The decision was rendered on 28 January 2022 within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, specifically addressing the procedural management of costs arising from the underlying litigation between Al Rihab Real Estate Company and Emirates NBD Bank.
What were the respective positions of Al Rihab Real Estate Company and Emirates NBD Bank regarding the Draft Bill of Costs?
Emirates NBD Bank, as the Respondent, took the position that it was entitled to an immediate interim payment on account of costs to mitigate the financial burden of the litigation. By filing the Draft Bill of Costs on 26 January 2022, the Bank signaled its intent to recover a portion of its legal expenditure without waiting for the final, potentially lengthy, assessment process to conclude. The Bank formally requested that the Court exercise its discretion to order a payment of 50% of the claimed amount.
Al Rihab Real Estate Company, as the Appellant, was subject to the Registrar’s review of the case file. While the specific arguments raised by the Appellant in opposition to the quantum are not detailed in the order, the Registrar’s decision to grant the request indicates that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds to stay or reduce the interim payment, leading to the mandatory order for the transfer of funds by the specified February deadline.
What was the precise legal question the Registrar had to answer regarding the application of Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014?
The primary legal question before the Registrar was whether the Court should exercise its discretionary power to order an interim payment on account of costs under the framework of the DIFC Courts’ Costs Regime. Specifically, the Registrar had to determine if the Respondent’s Draft Bill provided a sufficient basis to justify an order for 50% of the claimed costs pursuant to the authority granted by paragraph 5 of Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014. The court had to balance the Respondent’s right to recover costs against the procedural fairness owed to the Appellant, ensuring that the interim amount was a reasonable estimate of the likely final recovery.
How did Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the test for interim payments on account of costs in this matter?
Registrar Hineidi evaluated the request by reviewing the Draft Bill of Costs submitted by the Respondent and considering the broader context of the case file. The Registrar applied the standard practice of awarding a percentage of the total claimed costs as an interim measure, a common approach in DIFC litigation to prevent the delay of cost recovery. By granting the request, the Registrar confirmed that the 50% figure was a proportionate and appropriate interim sum.
The Respondent must provide the Appellant with its bank details before
4pm on Tuesday, 1 February 2022
for transfer of the Amount Payable.
Which specific DIFC rules and practice directions governed the Registrar’s authority to order this payment?
The Registrar’s authority to issue this order was derived directly from paragraph 5 of Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014. This Practice Direction governs the DIFC Courts’ Costs Regime and provides the procedural framework for the assessment of costs. By invoking this specific provision, the Registrar ensured that the order for an interim payment on account was consistent with the established rules for cost recovery in the DIFC. The order also relied on the general case management powers of the Court to review all relevant documents sitting on the case file to reach a fair and efficient resolution regarding the financial obligations of the parties.
How does the order in CA 006/2020 influence the practice of seeking interim payments on account of costs in the DIFC?
This order reinforces the established practice that parties in DIFC litigation should anticipate that the Court will facilitate the recovery of costs on an interim basis. Practitioners must be prepared for the likelihood that, upon the submission of a Draft Bill of Costs, the Court will grant a request for a significant percentage—often 50%—of the claimed amount as an interim payment. This serves as a reminder that the final assessment of costs is not the only stage at which financial recovery can be enforced. Litigants should ensure their Draft Bills are accurate and defensible, as the Court will rely on these documents to set interim payment obligations that are immediately enforceable.
What was the final disposition and the specific timeline for compliance ordered by the Registrar?
The Registrar granted the Respondent’s request in full. The Appellant, Al Rihab Real Estate Company, was ordered to pay the sum of USD 222,651.76 directly to Emirates NBD Bank. The order stipulated that this payment must be completed by 4:00 pm on 11 February 2022. Additionally, the Respondent was required to provide its bank details to the Appellant by 4:00 pm on 1 February 2022 to facilitate the transfer of the funds.
Where can I read the full judgment in Al Rihab Real Estate Company v Emirates NBD Bank [2022] DIFC CA 006?
The full order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/ca-006-2020-al-rihab-real-estate-company-llc-v-emirates-nbd-bank-pjsc-3
The document is also available via the following CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-appeal/DIFC_COA_CA_006_2020_Al_Rihab_Real_Estate_Company_LLC_v_Emirates_NBD_Bank_PJSC_20220128.txt
Legislation referenced:
- Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014 (DIFC Courts’ Costs Regime), paragraph 5.