What was the specific dispute regarding the Claimant’s costs in Tayseer Ali v Sadapay Technologies Ltd?
The dispute centered on the quantum of legal costs recoverable by the Claimant, Tayseer Ali, following the successful opposition to an application for permission to appeal (PTA) filed by the Defendant, Sadapay Technologies Ltd. After H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC refused the Defendant’s PTA application on 20 November 2025, the Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs of responding to that application. The Claimant submitted a Statement of Costs totaling AED 53,650, representing 14.5 hours of work by a single fee-earner at an hourly rate of AED 3,700.
The Defendant challenged this amount, arguing that the time claimed was excessive, particularly because the work overlapped with two other linked cases involving the same parties and similar legal issues. The Defendant contended that the total time spent across the three actions—amounting to 43.5 hours—was disproportionate for what were essentially short, 2.5-page submissions. As noted in the Court’s schedule of reasons:
The Claimant seeks the sum of AED 53,650 which is made up as to 14 hours and 30 minutes of work by Noorhan Abdullatif AlZaabi at a rate of AED 3,700 per hour.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in CFI 022/2025 and when was the order issued?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The final order, which followed the Court’s earlier refusal of the Defendant’s PTA application, was issued on 16 December 2025. This order finalized the assessment process initiated by the Court’s previous directive on 20 November 2025.
What were the specific legal arguments advanced by Tayseer Ali and Sadapay Technologies regarding the Statement of Costs?
The Claimant argued that the costs were reasonable and compliant with RDC 38.34-38.36. Counsel for the Claimant asserted that the hourly rate of AED 3,700 was appropriate for a practitioner with 13 years of DIFC litigation experience. Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that the work involved substantive tasks, including reviewing the Defendant’s appeal materials, researching authorities, taking instructions, and drafting tailored submissions for each individual claim. The Claimant emphasized that the Statement of Costs was signed with a statement of truth, providing sufficient evidence of the fees incurred.
Conversely, the Defendant challenged the claim on three primary grounds: the lack of produced invoices or proof of payment, the high hourly rate, and the lack of proportionality. The Defendant argued that the time spent was unreasonable given the brevity of the submissions and the fact that the work was duplicated across three linked cases. The Defendant contended that the Claimant had essentially billed for 43.5 hours of work across the three actions, which it viewed as an excessive expenditure for the task performed.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the assessment of costs?
The Court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded on the "standard basis" following the refusal of a permission to appeal application. The core issue was whether the claimed 14.5 hours per case (totaling 43.5 hours across three linked actions) met the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness set out in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The Court had to decide if the time spent was "reasonably incurred" or "reasonable in amount" when the underlying submissions contained substantial overlap in legal arguments and authorities.
How did Justice Roger Stewart KC apply the proportionality test under RDC 38 to the Claimant’s costs?
Justice Stewart applied the test of proportionality by scrutinizing the overlap between the three linked actions. While acknowledging that the arguments in each case were not identical, the Court found that the legal principles and authorities cited were substantially the same. The Judge concluded that the total time claimed across the three cases suggested an inefficient allocation of resources, as the work was likely performed once and then divided by three.
The Court relied on the specific requirements of the RDC to resolve doubts in favor of the paying party. As the Court noted:
RDC 38.18 requires that if the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the Court will: (i) Only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue; and (ii) Resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
Consequently, the Court found that the time claimed raised "real doubt" as to its reasonableness, leading to a significant reduction in the recoverable amount.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural authorities did the Court apply in assessing the costs?
The Court’s assessment was governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically:
* RDC 38.17: Providing that the Court will not allow costs that are unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount.
* RDC 38.18: Establishing the standard basis of assessment, requiring proportionality and the resolution of doubt in favor of the paying party.
* RDC 38.20(1): Confirming that where no basis is specified, the standard basis applies.
* RDC 38.21: Requiring the Court to have regard to all circumstances in deciding if costs were proportionately and reasonably incurred.
* RDC 38.34-38.36: Governing the form and requirements of the Statement of Costs.
How did the Court address the Defendant’s evidentiary objections regarding the Claimant’s Statement of Costs?
The Defendant argued that the Claimant failed to produce invoices or proof of payment to substantiate the costs. Justice Stewart summarily dismissed this challenge, finding it meritless. The Court held that the Statement of Costs was in the required form, complied with previous Court orders, and was signed with a statement of truth. The Court’s reasoning on this point was clear:
I do not consider that there is any merit in the Defendant’s submission that there has been no invoice or proof of payment produced.
What was the final outcome and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Court?
The Court reduced the Claimant’s requested costs from AED 53,650 to AED 23,433.33. The Court ordered that this sum be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant no later than 4:00 PM on 29 December 2025. This reduction reflected the Court’s view that the time claimed for the three linked actions was excessive and lacked the necessary proportionality required by the RDC.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC practitioners?
This case serves as a stern warning to practitioners regarding the recovery of costs in linked or "batch" litigation. When multiple cases involve similar legal issues or overlapping submissions, the Court will closely scrutinize the time entries to ensure that work is not being "double-counted" or inefficiently replicated. Practitioners must be prepared to demonstrate that the time spent on each individual file is distinct and necessary, rather than simply dividing a total block of time across multiple cases. As the Court noted regarding the total time spent:
It follows that it appears very likely that the overall time taken for all three actions in preparing opposition to the permission to appeal applications was 43.5 hours with the work being performed on all three cases and then divided in three.
Litigants should anticipate that the Court will apply a rigorous proportionality test, and any ambiguity regarding the reasonableness of time spent will be resolved in favor of the paying party under RDC 38.18.
Where can I read the full judgment in Tayseer Ali v Sadapay Technologies Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 022?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0222025-tayseer-ali-v-sadapay-technologies-ltd-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in the order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): 38.17, 38.18, 38.20(1), 38.21, 38.34-38.36.