What was the specific monetary dispute between Jonathan David Sheppard and Sadapay Technologies regarding the costs of the permission to appeal application?
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s application for costs following the Court’s refusal of the Defendant’s permission to appeal (PTA) application. The Claimant, Jonathan David Sheppard, sought a total of AED 53,650 for the work performed in responding to the Defendant’s challenge. This figure was calculated based on 14.5 hours of legal work performed by Noorhan Abdullatif AlZaabi, billed at an hourly rate of AED 3,700.
The Defendant, Sadapay Technologies, contested this amount, arguing that the time spent was excessive and the hourly rate unreasonable. The core of the disagreement was whether the time claimed was truly reflective of the work required for a 2.5-page submission, particularly given that the Claimant’s counsel was simultaneously handling two other linked cases. As noted in the Court’s order:
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.
The Court ultimately found that the total time claimed across the three linked matters was disproportionate, leading to a significant reduction in the recoverable amount.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in CFI 025/2025 and in what capacity did the Court act?
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart presided over this matter in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The assessment was conducted on 16 December 2025, following the Court’s earlier order on 20 November 2025, which had refused the Defendant’s PTA application and directed that the costs of that application be assessed.
What were the primary legal arguments advanced by Jonathan David Sheppard and Sadapay Technologies regarding the Statement of Costs?
The Defendant, Sadapay Technologies, challenged the Claimant’s Statement of Costs on three specific grounds. First, they argued that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient proof of payment or formal invoices. Second, they contended that the hourly rate of AED 3,700 was unreasonably high. Third, they asserted that the time spent—14.5 hours for a 2.5-page submission—was unreasonable, especially considering the substantial overlap in legal arguments across three linked cases, which collectively accounted for 43.5 hours of billed time.
The Claimant, represented by Noorhan Abdullatif AlZaabi, defended the costs by emphasizing that the Statement of Costs was signed with a statement of truth and complied with RDC 38.34–38.36. The Claimant argued that the hourly rate was commensurate with a practitioner possessing 13 years of DIFC litigation experience. Furthermore, the Claimant maintained that the work involved reviewing complex appeal materials, considering Court orders, and drafting tailored submissions for each individual claim, even where legal principles overlapped.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the assessment of costs on the standard basis?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the costs claimed were "proportionate and reasonably incurred" under the standard basis of assessment. The doctrinal challenge lay in applying the proportionality test mandated by the RDC when a party files identical Statements of Costs across multiple linked actions. The Court had to decide if the total time billed across three separate cases—totaling 5.5 working days for three short submissions—could be justified, or if it indicated an unreasonable duplication of effort that required judicial intervention to protect the paying party.
How did H.E. Justice Roger Stewart apply the proportionality test to the Claimant’s bill of costs?
Justice Stewart applied the test set out in RDC 38.18, which requires the Court to resolve any doubt regarding the reasonableness or proportionality of costs in favor of the paying party. The Judge observed that the Claimant had filed three identical Statements of Costs for three separate actions, each claiming 14.5 hours for the same fee-earner. Upon reviewing the skeleton arguments, the Court noted that while the cases were distinct, they shared substantial legal overlap, including arguments regarding the lateness of the appeals and the application of identical authorities.
The Court concluded that the total time claimed across the three actions was excessive. As stated in the judgment:
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.
Consequently, the Court held that the total time claimed raised "real doubt" as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred, leading to a reduction of the allowed amount to AED 23,433.33.
Which specific RDC rules governed the Court’s assessment of the Claimant’s costs?
The Court relied on several key provisions within the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to conduct the assessment:
- RDC 38.20(1): Established that in the absence of a specified basis, the assessment defaults to the standard basis.
- RDC 38.17: Mandated that the Court will not allow costs that are unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount.
- RDC 38.18: Required the Court to ensure costs are proportionate to the matters in issue and to resolve any doubts in favor of the paying party.
- RDC 38.21: Required the Court to have regard to all circumstances in deciding whether costs were proportionately and reasonably incurred.
- RDC 38.34–38.36: Governed the formal requirements for the Statement of Costs, which the Court found the Claimant had satisfied.
How did the Court treat the Defendant’s objection regarding the lack of invoices or proof of payment?
The Court summarily dismissed the Defendant’s argument that the absence of invoices or proof of payment invalidated the claim. Justice Stewart clarified that the procedural requirements for a Statement of Costs were met through the filing of the document in the prescribed form, signed with a statement of truth. The Court’s reasoning 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.
The Court focused instead on the substantive reasonableness of the hours billed rather than the formal evidentiary requirements for proof of payment.
What was the final disposition and the specific order for payment made by the Court?
The Court assessed the Claimant’s costs at AED 23,433.33, a significant reduction from the AED 53,650 originally claimed. The Court ordered the Defendant to pay this amount to the Claimant by 29 December 2025. The specific order was:
The said costs shall be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant by 29 December 2025.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners handling multiple linked cases?
This ruling serves as a stern warning to practitioners regarding the billing of "linked" or "related" matters. When a firm represents multiple claimants in similar actions, the Court expects a high degree of efficiency. Practitioners must be prepared to demonstrate that the time billed for each individual case is not merely a pro-rata division of a total block of time spent on all cases. If the work involves substantial overlap in legal research or drafting, the Court will likely view the total time spent as excessive and apply the proportionality test to reduce the recoverable costs. Future litigants should ensure that Statements of Costs clearly differentiate between work unique to a specific case and work that is common to multiple cases to avoid the "real doubt" that triggered the reduction in this case.
Where can I read the full judgment in Jonathan David Sheppard v Sadapay Technologies Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 025?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0252025-jonathan-david-sheppard-v-sadapay-technologies-ltd-3
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in the order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): 38.17, 38.18, 38.20(1), 38.21, 38.34, 38.35, 38.36