This order clarifies the procedural consequences of failing to contest a bill of costs within the DIFC Courts, resulting in the summary issuance of a Default Costs Certificate for AED 97,500.
Why did Amin Lakhani seek a Default Costs Certificate against Manish Srivastava in CFI-028-2018?
The dispute arises from the underlying litigation in CFI-028-2018, which culminated in a Default Judgment issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi on 28 June 2018. Following the successful judgment, the Claimant, Amin Lakhani, initiated the process to recover legal costs by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs on 9 October 2018.
The Defendant, Manish Srivastava, failed to respond to this notice within the mandatory timeframe. Consequently, the Claimant filed a request for a Default Costs Certificate on 27 November 2018. The core of the dispute at this stage was not the merits of the original claim, but the procedural failure of the Defendant to challenge the quantum of costs claimed by the Claimant. As noted in the Order:
The Claimant/ Receiving Party having indicated to the Court that the Defendant/ Paying Party has failed to serve points of dispute within the 21 day period required by Rule 40.15 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
The Court’s intervention was required to finalize the assessment of these costs in the absence of any opposition from the Paying Party. The source of this order can be found at https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0282018-amin-lakhani-v-manish-srivastava-1.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the Default Costs Certificate in CFI-028-2018?
The order was issued by Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi of the DIFC Courts, Court of First Instance. The decision was formalized on 16 January 2019, following the Claimant's application for the certificate in November 2018.
What were the procedural positions of Amin Lakhani and Manish Srivastava regarding the assessment of costs?
The Claimant, Amin Lakhani, acted as the Receiving Party, asserting his right to recover costs following the Default Judgment. His position was that he had strictly adhered to the procedural requirements set out in the RDC, specifically by filing the Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs on 9 October 2018. By the time of his request for the Default Costs Certificate on 27 November 2018, he maintained that the Defendant had forfeited his right to contest the bill due to inaction.
The Defendant, Manish Srivastava, as the Paying Party, failed to advance any legal argument or defense during the assessment phase. By failing to serve "points of dispute" within the 21-day window stipulated by RDC 40.15, the Defendant effectively conceded the amount claimed by the Claimant. The Court proceeded on the basis that the Defendant had no opposition to the bill, thereby allowing the Claimant’s request to proceed unopposed.
What was the specific jurisdictional question regarding the application of RDC 40.17 in the absence of points of dispute?
The Court had to determine whether the procedural requirements for the issuance of a Default Costs Certificate had been satisfied under the RDC. The legal question centered on whether the Claimant had met the threshold criteria under RDC 40.17, which governs the procedure when a party fails to serve points of dispute. Specifically, the Court had to verify that the 21-day period mandated by RDC 40.15 had elapsed without any filing from the Defendant, thereby triggering the Court’s authority to grant the certificate without a formal hearing on the merits of the individual cost items.
How did Judicial Officer Maha Al Mehairi apply the RDC 40.17 test to the Claimant’s request?
The Judicial Officer’s reasoning was based on a strict application of the procedural rules governing cost assessments. Upon reviewing the file, the Court confirmed that the Claimant had complied with all necessary filings, including the Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs. The Court then verified that the Defendant had failed to serve points of dispute within the 21-day period required by RDC 40.15.
Having satisfied these conditions, the Court applied the provisions of RDC 40.17 to grant the certificate. The reasoning process was straightforward: the failure of the Paying Party to engage with the assessment process within the prescribed timeline removes the requirement for the Court to conduct a detailed assessment of the bill. As stated in the Order:
UPON the Claimant/ Receiving Party having met the requirements of RDC 40.17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Default Costs Certificate is granted.
This procedural mechanism ensures that the costs assessment process remains efficient and that a Receiving Party is not indefinitely delayed by the silence of a Paying Party.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural requirements were applied in CFI-028-2018?
The Court relied primarily on the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The key provisions applied were:
- RDC 40.15: This rule establishes the 21-day timeframe within which a Paying Party must serve points of dispute following the service of a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs.
- RDC 40.17: This rule provides the authority for the Court to issue a Default Costs Certificate when the Paying Party fails to comply with the requirements of RDC 40.15.
The Court also exercised its authority to award specific court fees associated with the filing of the Default Costs Certificate and the Notice of Commencement of Bill of Costs, ensuring the Claimant was reimbursed for the administrative costs of the enforcement process.
How did the Court utilize the RDC framework to finalize the costs assessment?
The Court utilized the RDC framework as a mechanism for finality. By strictly enforcing the 21-day deadline, the Court ensured that the litigation process, even at the costs-recovery stage, does not suffer from unnecessary stagnation. The Court did not need to cite external precedents because the RDC provides a self-contained procedural code for the issuance of Default Costs Certificates. The reliance on RDC 40.17 served as the definitive authority to bypass the need for a contested hearing, effectively treating the Defendant’s silence as an admission of the costs claimed.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief awarded to Amin Lakhani?
The Court granted the Default Costs Certificate in favor of the Claimant, Amin Lakhani. The Defendant, Manish Srivastava, was ordered to pay the following amounts:
- Principal Costs: AED 97,500.
- Court Fees: USD 300 (for the filing of the Default Costs Certificate) and USD 1,989.79 (for the filing of the Notice of Commencement of Bill of Costs).
The Defendant was ordered to make these payments no later than 4:00 PM on Sunday, 3 February 2019.
How does this order impact the practice of costs recovery in the DIFC Courts?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that the DIFC Courts maintain a strict adherence to procedural timelines, particularly regarding costs assessments. Litigants must anticipate that failure to serve points of dispute within the 21-day period under RDC 40.15 will result in the summary issuance of a Default Costs Certificate. This effectively precludes the Paying Party from challenging the reasonableness or proportionality of the costs claimed. Practitioners should ensure that their clients are aware of these deadlines immediately upon receipt of a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs to avoid the significant financial consequences of a default order.
Where can I read the full judgment in Amin Lakhani v Manish Srivastava [2019] DIFC CFI 028?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0282018-amin-lakhani-v-manish-srivastava-1 or via the CDN link at https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-028-2018_20190116.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 40.15
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 40.17