This order provides a critical application of the DIFC Courts' cost-assessment framework, specifically addressing the intersection of Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023 and the proportionality of legal fees in repetitive litigation.
What was the specific monetary dispute between Tayseer Ali and Sadapay Technologies regarding the costs of the Renewed Application?
The dispute arose following the dismissal of the Defendant’s Renewed Application for permission to appeal an earlier order made by Justice Roger Stewart. Following the dismissal of this application by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 29 January 2026, the Claimant, Tayseer Ali, sought to recover the costs incurred during the appeal process. The Claimant submitted a statement of costs totaling AED 59,600, which the Defendant, Sadapay Technologies, did not formally contest through written submissions.
Despite the lack of opposition from the Defendant, the Court exercised its inherent duty to ensure that the recovery of costs remained within the bounds of reasonableness and proportionality. As noted in the Court’s reasons:
On 29 January 2026, orders were made dismissing the Defendant's Renewed Application and ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs of the Renewed Application to be assessed in accordance with the procedure specified in those orders. The first step in that procedure has been implemented and the Claimant has filed a statement of costs climbing to AED 59,600.
The Court ultimately determined that the claimed amount was excessive, leading to a downward adjustment of the final award.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in CFI 022/2025 and what was the procedural history of this assessment?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin in the Court of First Instance. The procedural history leading to this assessment is rooted in the 29 January 2026 order, which dismissed the Defendant’s Renewed Application for permission to appeal. Paragraph 6 of that order specifically mandated that the quantum of the Claimant’s costs would be assessed by the Chief Justice by way of an immediate assessment on the papers. The final order resulting from this assessment was issued on 17 March 2026.
What were the positions of Tayseer Ali and Sadapay Technologies regarding the reasonableness of the AED 59,600 costs claim?
The Claimant, Tayseer Ali, asserted that the costs of AED 59,600 were justified based on the time spent by two senior counsel, each possessing 13 years of experience. The Claimant’s position relied on the hourly rates applied to the hours worked on the matter. Conversely, the Defendant, Sadapay Technologies, remained silent throughout the assessment process. As the Court observed:
The Defendant has not taken advantage of the opportunity to file submissions in opposition to the amount claimed.
While the Defendant’s lack of opposition might typically lead to an unopposed assessment, the Court maintained its oversight role, noting that it remained obligated to scrutinize the claim against established practice directions to ensure the final figure was not disproportionate.
What was the primary legal question the DIFC Court had to resolve regarding the application of Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023?
The Court had to determine whether the hourly rates and total hours claimed by the Claimant’s legal representatives complied with the guidelines set out in Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether a practitioner with 13 years of experience, who is not a partner, can justify an hourly rate of AED 3,700, and whether the time spent on drafting skeleton arguments was reasonable given that the practitioners were simultaneously handling three similar cases against the same Defendant.
How did H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin apply the test of reasonableness to the hourly rates and hours claimed by the practitioners?
The Court applied a two-fold test of reasonableness. First, it compared the claimed hourly rate against the thresholds defined in the Practice Direction. The Court found that while AED 3,700 might be acceptable for a partner, it exceeded the ceiling for a non-partner with 13 years of experience, which is capped at AED 3,298. Second, the Court evaluated the efficiency of the work performed, noting that the similarity of the three cases against Sadapay Technologies meant that the drafting of the skeleton arguments should have been significantly streamlined.
The Court’s reasoning for the reduction was explicit:
As the practitioner is not said to be a partner, the costs claimed should be reduced to allow for the fact that the rate claimed for that practitioner is excessive.
By identifying both an inflated hourly rate and an inflated volume of hours due to repetitive work, the Court concluded that the initial claim of AED 59,600 was not proportionate to the actual effort required.
Which specific sections of Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023 were applied to the costs assessment in this case?
The Court relied on the hourly rate ranges established in Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023. Specifically, the Court referenced the distinction between the rates permissible for "partners" and those for practitioners with "more than 10 years’ experience." The Court identified that the top of the range for the latter category is AED 3,298. By contrasting the Claimant's claimed rate of AED 3,700 against this specific threshold, the Court established the basis for the reduction.
How did the Court utilize the concept of "reasonable and proportionate" costs in its assessment?
The Court invoked the principle that it must independently verify the reasonableness of costs, regardless of whether the opposing party challenges them. The Court stated:
Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the Court to review the amount claimed in order to be satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and proportionate.
This approach ensures that the DIFC Court’s cost-assessment process acts as a safeguard against excessive billing, preventing parties from passing on costs that do not reflect the actual complexity or the specific requirements of the litigation, particularly when counsel is leveraging work product across multiple related files.
What was the final disposition of the costs assessment and what specific orders were made by the Court?
The Court dismissed the Claimant's request for the full amount of AED 59,600. Instead, it performed an immediate assessment on the papers and ordered the Defendant to pay a reduced sum. The final order stated:
Taking these matters into account the Claimant's costs are assessed in the amount of AED 45,000.
This amount represents a reduction of AED 14,600 from the original claim, reflecting the Court's adjustment for both the excessive hourly rate and the excessive hours claimed for the drafting of the skeleton arguments.
How does this ruling change the practice for litigants handling multiple related cases in the DIFC?
This case serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Courts will actively scrutinize the efficiency of legal work when practitioners represent clients in multiple, similar cases. Practitioners must be prepared to demonstrate that the hours billed are unique to the specific case and not merely recycled from related files. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces that the Court will strictly enforce the hourly rate caps provided in Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023. Litigants should anticipate that the Court will not hesitate to reduce costs sua sponte, even if the opposing party fails to file formal objections, if the claimed amounts deviate from the established guidelines or appear disproportionate to the task performed.
Where can I read the full judgment in Tayseer Ali v Sadapay Technologies [2026] DIFC CFI 022?
The full text of the Order with Reasons can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0222025-tayseer-ali-v-sadapay-technologies-ltd-4
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023 (Hourly rate guidelines)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) (General assessment procedures)