The Amended Order of Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi provides a definitive conclusion to the protracted cost recovery process between Das Real Estate and First Abu Dhabi Bank, quantifying the financial burden of the underlying litigation at over AED 4.4 million.
What specific amount of legal costs was Das Real Estate ordered to pay to First Abu Dhabi Bank following the conclusion of CA-007-2017?
The dispute centers on the final quantification of legal fees and disbursements incurred by First Abu Dhabi Bank (formerly National Bank of Abu Dhabi) during the course of the litigation initiated by Das Real Estate. Following the substantive rulings in the Court of First Instance (CFI-002-2016) and the subsequent appeal (CA-007-2017), the court was tasked with resolving the final bill of costs.
The Deputy Registrar assessed the total liability of the Claimant, Das Real Estate, at AED 4,415,188. This figure represents the culmination of the assessment process initiated by the Defendant’s Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs filed on 3 February 2019. The order mandates that this sum be paid in full within 30 days of the issuance of the order.
Which DIFC judicial officer presided over the assessment of the bill of costs in CA-007-2017?
The assessment of the bill of costs was conducted by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi. The order was issued on 28 August 2019, following a comprehensive review of the Defendant’s Notice of Commencement, the Claimant’s Points of Dispute dated 27 February 2019, and the Defendant’s subsequent Response dated 17 March 2019.
How did the Claimant and Respondent frame their arguments regarding the assessment of the bill of costs in CA-007-2017?
The parties engaged in a formal assessment process governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The Respondent, First Abu Dhabi Bank, initiated the process by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment, seeking recovery of its legal expenditure across both the trial and appellate stages of the proceedings.
The Claimant, Das Real Estate, represented by Mussabeh Salem Mussabeh Humaid AlMuhairi, contested the quantum of these costs by filing formal "Points of Dispute." This procedural step required the court to adjudicate on the reasonableness and proportionality of the fees claimed by the bank's legal representatives. The Respondent then filed a formal Response to these points, defending the necessity and scale of the costs incurred throughout the litigation history, which included the judgment of Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel in CFI-002-2016.
What was the jurisdictional and procedural question before Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi during the assessment of costs in CA-007-2017?
The primary question before the Deputy Registrar was the determination of the "reasonable and proportionate" amount of costs to be awarded to the successful party under the RDC. The court had to reconcile the competing submissions regarding the bill of costs, specifically evaluating whether the expenses claimed by First Abu Dhabi Bank were justified in light of the complexity of the banking dispute and the procedural history of the case.
The court was required to exercise its discretion to ensure that the final assessment reflected the actual costs incurred while adhering to the principles of cost recovery in the DIFC. This involved a granular review of the disbursements and legal fees documented in the bill of costs, ensuring that the final order of AED 4,415,188 aligned with the judicial findings regarding the liability for costs established in the underlying CFI and Court of Appeal judgments.
How did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the principles of cost assessment to the bill of costs in CA-007-2017?
The Deputy Registrar followed a structured review process, examining the evidentiary record provided by both parties. The reasoning involved a systematic evaluation of the Defendant’s bill of costs against the Claimant’s specific objections. By reviewing the history of the case, including the First Costs Order issued by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi and the earlier order of Justice Sir David Steel, the Deputy Registrar ensured that the assessment was consistent with the court’s previous determinations on liability.
The final determination was reached after considering the following:
"UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Points of Dispute dated 27 February 2019 (“Points of Dispute”) AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Response to the Claimant’s Points of Dispute dated 17 March 2019 (the “Response”)."
This rigorous assessment process ensured that the final figure of AED 4,415,188 was not merely a reflection of the bank's initial claim, but a judicially scrutinized amount that accounted for the specific arguments raised by the Claimant.
Which specific DIFC statutes and procedural rules governed the assessment of costs in CA-007-2017?
The assessment was conducted under the framework of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which govern the procedure for the assessment of costs. The Deputy Registrar specifically relied upon the procedural history established in the following matters:
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA-007-2017 (issued 12 April 2018).
- Judgment of Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel in CFI-002-2016 (issued 10 August 2017).
- Order of H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi (the "First Costs Order," issued 4 October 2016).
- Order of Justice Sir David Steel (issued 8 February 2016).
These documents provided the legal basis for the assessment, establishing the entitlement of the Defendant to recover costs and the scope of the proceedings for which those costs were recoverable.
How did the court utilize the precedents established in CFI-002-2016 and the Court of Appeal judgment in CA-007-2017?
The Deputy Registrar utilized the earlier judgments as the foundational authority for the cost assessment. The judgment of Deputy Chief Justice Sir David Steel in DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK [2017] DIFC CA 002 — Permission to appeal granted (07 November 2017) served as the primary reference point for the substantive merits of the case, which informed the reasonableness of the legal work performed.
By referencing the Court of Appeal judgment in CA-007-2017, the Deputy Registrar ensured that the costs awarded were strictly limited to the proceedings that had been successfully litigated by the Respondent. The court treated these precedents as binding in terms of the liability for costs, focusing the assessment solely on the quantum of the bill.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief ordered by the court in CA-007-2017?
The Deputy Registrar issued a definitive order requiring the Claimant to satisfy the costs liability within a strict timeframe. The disposition was as follows:
- The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s legal costs (including disbursements) in CFI-002-2016 and CA-007-2017 assessed in the total amount of AED 4,415,188.
- The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s Costs within 30 days from the date of the Order.
This order effectively closed the assessment phase of the litigation, providing the Respondent with a clear, enforceable judgment for the recovery of its legal expenses.
What are the wider implications for litigants regarding cost assessment in the DIFC?
This case highlights the importance of the "Points of Dispute" process in DIFC litigation. Litigants must anticipate that the court will conduct a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of legal bills. The outcome serves as a reminder that unsuccessful parties are not only liable for the substantive judgment amount but also for significant legal costs incurred by the prevailing party.
Practitioners should ensure that bills of costs are meticulously prepared and that any objections are supported by specific, evidence-based arguments, as the DIFC Courts will rely on the procedural history and previous costs orders to reach a final, binding determination. The 30-day payment window emphasizes the court's expectation of prompt compliance with cost orders.
Where can I read the full judgment in DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK [2019] DIFC CA 007?
The full text of the Amended Order of Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/ca-0072017-das-real-estate-owned-and-represented-mussabeh-salem-mussabeh-humaid-almuhairi-v-national-bank-abu-dhabi-pjsc-1
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK | CA-007-2017 | Primary appellate judgment establishing cost liability |
| DAS REAL ESTATE v FIRST ABU DHABI BANK | CFI-002-2016 | Primary trial judgment establishing cost liability |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court of Appeal Order (CA-007-2017)
- DIFC Court of First Instance Judgment (CFI-002-2016)