This order concludes the long-running litigation between Anoop Kumar Lal, Paul Patrick Hennessy, and Donna Benton, clarifying the procedural finality of "costs reserved" orders and reaffirming the DIFC Court’s standard approach to cost recovery following unsuccessful appeals.
What was the specific nature of the dispute between Anoop Kumar Lal, Paul Patrick Hennessy, and Donna Benton that necessitated this final costs order?
The litigation, initiated via a Part 8 Claim Form on 14 January 2021, involved a complex dispute between the Claimants, Anoop Kumar Lal and Paul Patrick Hennessy, and the Defendant, Donna Benton. The proceedings spanned several years, involving a substantive judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie on 22 September 2023, followed by multiple unsuccessful attempts by the Claimants to secure permission to appeal.
The current order serves as the terminal point for the litigation, specifically addressing the Defendant’s entitlement to recover legal costs incurred throughout the multi-year battle. The Claimants had resisted the application for costs, attempting to re-litigate aspects of the underlying judgment and challenging the procedural validity of the Defendant’s application. As noted in the court's reasoning:
I can see no reason to depart from the usual presumption that costs follow success. The Defendant was successful and should have her costs of the action, to be assessed by the Registrar on the standard basis if not agreed.
This order follows a series of procedural milestones in the case, including:
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2021] DIFC CFI 005 — Procedural transition from Part 8 to Part 7 (18 March 2021)
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2021] DIFC CFI 005 — Consolidation of related proceedings (02 May 2021)
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2021] DIFC CFI 005/2021 — Consent order discontinuing immediate judgment application (18 May 2021)
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2021] DIFC CFI 005 — Case management directions for ESOP and breach of fiduciary duty claims (14 July 2021)
ANOOP KUMAR LAL v DONNA BENTON [2021] DIFC CFI 005 — Document production and the limits of RDC Part 28 (31 August 2021)
Which judge presided over the final costs determination in CFI 005/2021?
The order was issued by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The determination was finalized on 14 February 2025, following a lengthy procedural history that included the refusal of the Claimants' permission to appeal by H.E. Justice Robert French in September 2024.
What specific legal arguments did the Claimants advance to oppose the Defendant’s application for costs?
The Claimants argued that the Defendant’s application for costs was procedurally improper, relying on a misinterpretation of the term "costs reserved." They contended that the court was effectively functus officio—meaning the court had exhausted its jurisdiction regarding the matter of costs—due to the way previous orders had been framed.
Furthermore, the Claimants’ submissions attempted to revisit the merits of the underlying judgment, arguing that the Defendant should not be entitled to costs because the judgment itself was flawed. The Claimants sought to use the costs application as a vehicle to re-argue points that had already been rejected during their unsuccessful applications for permission to appeal.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the interpretation of "costs reserved"?
The court was tasked with determining whether the phrase "costs reserved" in a previous order acts as a bar to a subsequent application for costs, or if it merely serves as a procedural placeholder. The doctrinal question was whether the court retains the authority to award costs after the conclusion of the substantive proceedings and failed appeals, or if the court loses its jurisdiction to make such an order once the main judgment is rendered.
How did H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie apply the doctrine of "costs reserved" to the Defendant’s application?
Justice Glennie clarified that the term "costs reserved" is a standard procedural mechanism intended to defer the decision on costs until a later, more appropriate time. He rejected the Claimants' assertion that this phrasing precluded the current application, emphasizing that the court remains seized of the matter until a final order on costs is issued.
An expression such as this simply means that the question of costs can be considered at a later date, on the application of either party.
The judge further noted that the Claimants' attempt to re-litigate the merits of the judgment was irrelevant to the costs application. Having already failed to secure permission to appeal, the Claimants could not use the costs phase to challenge the finality of the court's earlier findings.
Which DIFC Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) and legal principles were applied to determine the liability for costs?
The Court applied the fundamental principle that "costs follow the event," a cornerstone of DIFC civil procedure. While the RDC provides the framework for the assessment of costs, the court relied on the inherent discretion to award costs to the successful party. The court specifically directed that the costs be assessed on the "standard basis," which requires that the costs be proportionate and reasonably incurred, rather than the more punitive "indemnity basis."
How did the Court treat the previous decisions of H.E. Justice Robert French in the context of the costs application?
The Court acknowledged the procedural history involving H.E. Justice Robert French, specifically the refusal of the Claimants' request for an oral hearing and the subsequent refusal of the Renewed Permission Application in September 2024. The Court used these prior rulings to establish that the merits of the case were settled and that the Claimants' criticisms of the judgment were already exhausted.
Justice Robert French made 2 September 2024 refusing the Claimants’ request for an oral hearing AND UPON the decision of H.E.
By referencing these decisions, Justice Glennie underscored that the litigation had reached a definitive end, leaving no room for the Claimants to challenge the underlying success of the Defendant.
What was the final disposition and the specific order made regarding the payment of costs?
The Court ruled in favor of the Defendant, Donna Benton, and ordered the Claimants, Anoop Kumar Lal and Paul Patrick Hennessy, to bear the costs of the proceedings. The specific order was as follows:
The Claimants shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis by the Registrar if not agreed.
This order ensures that the Defendant is compensated for the legal expenses incurred throughout the litigation, with the Registrar tasked with the final quantification should the parties fail to reach an agreement on the specific amounts.
How does this ruling influence future practice regarding "costs reserved" and the finality of DIFC litigation?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that "costs reserved" is not a shield against liability, but a procedural deferral. Litigants should anticipate that once a substantive judgment is handed down, the prevailing party will almost certainly be awarded costs, and attempts to use the costs phase to re-argue the merits of the case will be summarily rejected by the Court. The ruling reinforces the DIFC Court’s commitment to the "costs follow the event" principle, discouraging the prolongation of litigation through meritless procedural challenges.
Where can I read the full judgment in Anoop Kumar Lal v Donna Benton [2025] DIFC CFI 005?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0052021-1-anoop-kumar-lal-2-paul-patrick-hennessy-v-donna-benton-9 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-005-2021_20250214.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Anoop Kumar Lal v Donna Benton | [2023] DIFC CFI 005 | Substantive judgment on the merits |
| Anoop Kumar Lal v Donna Benton | [2023] DIFC CFI 005 | Order refusing permission to appeal |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) — General provisions on costs and assessment
- DIFC Court Law — Jurisdiction and powers regarding costs orders