What was the nature of the dispute between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners regarding the AED 2.675 million costs claim?
The litigation arose from an employment dispute between Asif Hakim Adil and Frontline Development Partners Limited, which culminated in a judgment delivered on 3 April 2016. Following the court’s determination that Mr. Adil was the dominantly successful party, a secondary dispute emerged regarding the recovery of legal costs. The Claimant sought to recover costs totaling AED 2.675 million, supported by a schedule of 13 invoices and two draft invoices covering the period from March 2015 to May 2016.
The Defendant contested the full recovery of these costs, arguing that the Claimant had only succeeded on a fraction of his original claim and had included unreasonable allegations. The Defendant initially proposed paying only 20 percent of the costs, later increasing this offer to 50 percent. The Claimant, conversely, sought full recovery, including indemnity costs, interest, and an immediate interim payment. As noted in the court records:
From a schedule provided by the Claimant, costs and disbursements were invoiced by his current lawyers from March 2015 onwards. The schedule recorded 13 invoices to 26 May 2016, and two draft invoices, for a total sum of AED 2.675 million.
This dispute over the allocation of costs reflects the broader complexity of the underlying employment litigation, which involved significant factual investigations into the termination of Mr. Adil’s employment. For further context on the procedural history of this matter, see ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2014] DIFC CFI 015 — Employment dispute and strike-out application (08 October 2014).
Which judge presided over the costs hearing for Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
Justice Roger Giles presided over the costs hearing in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order regarding costs was issued on 24 July 2016, following a series of submissions and a telephone hearing held on 18 May 2016. Justice Giles had previously issued the substantive judgment on 3 April 2016, which established the foundation for the subsequent costs orders.
How did the parties argue the apportionment of costs in Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners?
The parties held diametrically opposed views on the appropriate costs award. The Claimant initially attempted to join the Defendant’s Chairman, Mr. Suresh Chaturvedi, as a party for the purposes of costs, though this application was later abandoned. The Claimant argued that he was the dominantly successful party and should be entitled to the entirety of his costs, further requesting that these be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The Claimant’s draft orders of 18 April 2016 proposed that the Defendant’s Chairman, Mr Suresh Chaturvedi, be added as a defendant for the purposes of costs, and that the Defendant and Mr Chaturvedi be jointly liable to pay “the Claimant’s costs occasioned by these proceedings”.
The Defendant, represented by its legal counsel, argued for a significant reduction in the costs award. They contended that the Claimant had only succeeded on approximately 20 percent of his monetary claim and had failed on several heads of claim, such as club membership and abusive dismissal compensation. The Defendant’s position evolved during the proceedings:
In alternative draft orders of 1 May 2016 the Defendant proposed an order that it pay 20 per cent of the Claimant’s costs occasioned by the proceedings, giving brief reasons for that order.
In submissions of 8 June 2016 it proposed an order that it pay 50 per cent of the Claimant’s costs.
What was the specific doctrinal question Justice Roger Giles had to answer regarding the Claimant’s entitlement to costs?
The court was tasked with determining whether the Claimant’s costs should be reduced to reflect the "money value" of his success, or whether the "dominantly successful" test should prevail regardless of the disparity between the amount claimed and the amount awarded. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the Claimant’s conduct or the nature of the litigation warranted an uplift to indemnity costs, and whether it was appropriate to order an interim payment on account of costs before a formal assessment by the Registrar.
How did Justice Roger Giles apply the "dominantly successful" test to the costs claim?
Justice Giles rejected the Defendant’s attempt to parse the costs based on the specific monetary outcome of individual heads of claim. He emphasized that the central issue—the true reason for the termination of the Claimant’s employment—required a comprehensive factual investigation that governed the entire proceedings. He reasoned that the Defendant had also failed to pursue its own pleaded case effectively, and that the "money value" of the outcome was not a sound guide for costs.
I remain of the view that the Claimant was dominantly successful in the proceedings; such that in my opinion no reduction is warranted in the costs to be ordered in his favour.
Regarding the request for indemnity costs, the court found that the litigation, while contentious, did not cross the threshold into the exceptional circumstances required for such an order.
I do not think that these matters, not uncommonly encountered, so take the case out of the ordinary as to warrant indemnity costs.
Which authorities and DIFC statutes were cited during the costs determination?
The court’s decision was primarily guided by the principles of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding cost-shifting and the assessment of costs. While the substantive employment claims were grounded in the DIFC Employment Law, Law No. 4 of 2005 (specifically Article 59A), the costs order itself relied on the court’s inherent discretion to award costs to the successful party. The court also referenced the previous judgment of 3 April 2016, specifically paragraph 343, which had already signaled the court's preliminary view on the Claimant's dominant success.
How did the court utilize the cited precedents and procedural rules in the costs assessment?
The court utilized the "dominantly successful" doctrine to prevent the Defendant from engaging in "undue parsing" of the issues. Justice Giles noted that pleaded cases often evolve during trial, and a realistic winner is rarely successful on every single point. By citing the previous judgment, the court maintained consistency in its approach to the litigation. The court also exercised its discretion under the RDC to order an interim payment, noting that even if the costs were assessed conservatively, the Claimant would likely recover significantly more than the interim amount requested.
I put aside, in the Defendant’s favour, any costs payable or paid to the Claimant’s previous lawyers. But it is difficult to see that the Claimant would recover on assessment less than 30 per cent of the AED 2.675 million, even allowing for a discount for costs as between the parties and for challenge to whether costs were incurred for the trial; and the Defendant did not support its submissions by putting the invoices before me.
What was the final outcome and relief granted by Justice Roger Giles?
The court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed. Additionally, the Defendant was ordered to pay interest on the costs and disbursements from the date of payment. Crucially, the court granted an immediate interim payment to the Claimant to alleviate the financial burden pending the final assessment.
The Defendant forthwith pay the Claimant AED 800,000 on account of costs pending their assessment.
This order ensured that the Claimant received a portion of his legal expenditures without waiting for the potentially lengthy process of formal taxation or assessment by the Registrar.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC employment practitioners?
This case reinforces the principle that the DIFC Courts prioritize the "dominantly successful" party in costs awards, rather than engaging in a granular, issue-by-issue reduction based on the monetary value of specific claims. Practitioners should note that the court is willing to order substantial interim payments on account of costs, provided the claimant can demonstrate that the final assessed amount will likely exceed the interim figure. This serves as a protective mechanism for claimants who have incurred significant legal fees in complex employment disputes. For further reading on the procedural evolution of this case, see MR ASIF HAKIM ADIL v FRONTLINE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS [2015] DIFC CFI 015 — Disclosure order for Redfern Schedule production (27 January 2015).
Where can I read the full judgment in Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners [2016] DIFC CFI 015?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0152014-asif-hakim-adil-v-frontline-development-partners-limited-9 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-015-2014_20160724.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners | [2016] DIFC CFI 015 | Substantive judgment (3 April 2016) providing basis for costs order |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Employment Law, Law No. 4 of 2005, Article 59A
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)