This Consent Order marks the final procedural step in the litigation between Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel Jumeirah Village LLC against Orient UNB Tafakul PJSC, specifically addressing the quantum of legal costs payable following the dismissal of the underlying claim.
What was the specific monetary value of the costs settlement reached between Five Holding and Orient UNB Tafakul in CFI 027/2021?
The dispute in CFI 027/2021 originated from a Claim Form filed on 21 February 2021. While the substantive merits of the case were resolved through a prior dismissal, the parties remained at odds regarding the quantification of the Defendant’s legal costs. Following the court's directive that the Claimants were liable for the Defendant's costs, the parties engaged in negotiations to avoid a formal assessment by the Registrar.
These negotiations culminated in a full and final agreement, which was formalized by the Court on 25 March 2024. The agreement settled the aggregate liability at AED 252,347.32. This figure represents the total financial obligation of the Claimants to the Defendant, effectively extinguishing any further claims the Defendant might have had regarding the costs of the proceedings. As stipulated in the order:
The Claimants shall pay the Costs Sum to the Defendant by 4pm GST on 6 May 2024. 3.
The resolution of this amount provides closure to the litigation, ensuring that the financial burden of the dismissed proceedings is settled without the need for further judicial intervention or a protracted assessment process. Further details on the order can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which DIFC Court official presided over the issuance of the Consent Order in CFI 027/2021 on 25 March 2024?
The Consent Order was issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo within the Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued at 10:00 am on 25 March 2024, following the parties' notification to the Court that they had reached a mutual agreement regarding the quantum of costs previously ordered to be paid by the Claimants.
What were the respective positions of Five Holding and Orient UNB Tafakul regarding the assessment of costs in CFI 027/2021?
The Claimants, Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel Jumeirah Village LLC, and the Defendant, Orient UNB Tafakul PJSC, adopted a cooperative stance regarding the finalization of costs. Rather than proceeding to a contested assessment before the Registrar—a process that would have required the submission of detailed bills of costs and potential judicial scrutiny of hourly rates and disbursements—the parties opted for a negotiated settlement.
The Defendant’s position was anchored in the entitlement to recover costs as established by the earlier Consent Order dated 28 March 2024. By reaching a "full and final agreement," both parties effectively waived their rights to challenge the reasonableness of the costs through the formal RDC assessment procedures. This approach allowed the parties to achieve certainty and avoid the additional legal expenses associated with a formal taxation of costs.
What was the precise procedural question the Court had to answer regarding the enforcement of the costs order in CFI 027/2021?
The Court was tasked with determining whether the parties had reached a binding agreement on the quantum of costs that could be incorporated into a formal Consent Order. The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s role in giving effect to party autonomy in the settlement of ancillary litigation costs. Having previously ordered that costs be paid by the Claimants and assessed by the Registrar if not agreed, the Court needed to verify that the parties had indeed reached a consensus on the specific "Costs Sum" of AED 252,347.32. By issuing the order, the Court confirmed that the agreement met the requirements for a binding Consent Order, thereby providing the Defendant with an enforceable judgment for the agreed amount.
How did Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo apply the principle of party autonomy to finalize the costs in CFI 027/2021?
Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo exercised the Court’s authority to formalize the agreement reached between the parties. By acknowledging the "full and final agreement" reached by the Claimants and the Defendant, the Court bypassed the need for a Registrar-led assessment. This reasoning aligns with the DIFC Courts' preference for parties to resolve ancillary disputes, such as the quantification of costs, through mutual agreement.
The Court’s role was essentially to provide the necessary judicial imprimatur to the settlement, ensuring that the terms were clearly defined and enforceable. The order explicitly states:
The Claimants shall pay the Costs Sum to the Defendant by 4pm GST on 6 May 2024. 3.
By incorporating this specific deadline and the aggregate sum into the order, the Court ensured that the parties’ private agreement was transformed into a public, enforceable obligation, thereby preventing future disputes over the timing or amount of the payment.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the assessment of costs when parties fail to agree on the quantum?
While the parties in CFI 027/2021 reached a settlement, the underlying framework for this order is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which deals with the general rules about costs. Specifically, RDC 38.2 provides the Court with the discretion to award costs, while RDC 38.35 through 38.40 outline the procedure for the detailed assessment of costs. Had the parties not reached an agreement, the matter would have proceeded to a detailed assessment under these rules, where the Registrar would have scrutinized the costs for reasonableness and proportionality.
How does the precedent of party-led cost settlement in CFI 027/2021 reflect the DIFC Courts' approach to litigation efficiency?
The resolution of CFI 027/2021 reinforces the established practice in the DIFC Courts of encouraging parties to settle costs disputes without judicial intervention. The Court’s reliance on the parties' agreement mirrors the approach seen in other commercial disputes where the focus is on minimizing the "costs of the costs." By avoiding a formal assessment, the parties utilized the Court’s procedural flexibility to achieve a finality that is both cost-effective and efficient. This case serves as a practical example of how the DIFC Courts facilitate the conclusion of proceedings by validating negotiated settlements, thereby reducing the administrative burden on the Court’s registry.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted to Orient UNB Tafakul in the Consent Order of 25 March 2024?
The final disposition was the formalization of the costs settlement. The Court ordered the Claimants to pay the Defendant the aggregate sum of AED 252,347.32. The order also included a "liberty to apply" clause, which allows the parties to return to the Court should any issues arise regarding the implementation of the order. The payment deadline was set for 4:00 pm GST on 6 May 2024. Upon payment of this sum, the Defendant is barred from making any further claims against the Claimants regarding the costs of the proceedings, effectively closing the file on the litigation.
What are the practical implications for practitioners regarding the use of Consent Orders for costs in the DIFC?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Courts are highly amenable to Consent Orders that resolve ancillary issues like costs. This case demonstrates that once a liability for costs is established, the Court will readily facilitate a settlement if the parties can agree on the quantum. For litigants, this underscores the importance of early and transparent negotiation of costs to avoid the time and expense of a formal assessment. Practitioners should ensure that any such agreement is clearly drafted, specifies an aggregate sum, and includes a firm payment deadline to ensure the resulting Consent Order is robust and enforceable.
Where can I read the full judgment in Five Holding v Orient UNB Tafakul [2024] DIFC CFI 027?
The full text of the Consent Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0272021-1-five-holding-limited-2-five-hotel-jumeirah-village-llc-v-orient-unb-tafakul-pjsc-1. The document is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-027-2021_20240325.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law was cited in this Consent Order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38 (Costs)