This order marks the final procedural step in the litigation between Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel FZE and Qatar Insurance Company, quantifying the specific financial liability for legal costs following the dismissal of the underlying proceedings.
What was the specific monetary value of the costs settlement reached between Five Holding Limited and Qatar Insurance Company in CFI 028/2021?
The dispute involved a claim brought by Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel FZE against Qatar Insurance Company. Following the dismissal of the proceedings, the parties were tasked with determining the quantum of legal costs owed by the Claimants to the Defendant. Rather than proceeding to a formal assessment by the Registrar, the parties reached a negotiated settlement to resolve the outstanding financial obligations arising from the litigation.
The resulting Consent Order formalizes this agreement, stipulating that the Claimants are liable for an aggregate sum of AED 269,241.26. This figure represents the full and final satisfaction of the Defendant’s costs, precluding any further claims by Qatar Insurance Company regarding the legal expenses incurred during the life of the case.
Which judicial officer presided over the issuance of the 25 April 2024 Consent Order in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The Consent Order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton. The order was processed within the Court of First Instance, reflecting the final administrative and judicial oversight required to conclude the cost-related aspects of CFI 028/2021. The order was formally issued at 9:00 am on 25 April 2024, following the earlier dismissal of the proceedings on 28 March 2024.
What was the procedural posture of the parties regarding the assessment of costs under the previous 28 March 2024 order?
Following the dismissal of the proceedings by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton on 28 March 2024, the court had initially made provision for the payment of the Defendant’s costs, with the caveat that such costs would be subject to assessment by the Registrar if the parties failed to reach an agreement.
In this instance, the Claimants and the Defendant opted to bypass the formal assessment process. By reaching a full and final agreement, the parties effectively utilized the court’s mechanism for consent orders to avoid the time and expense associated with a contested taxation or assessment hearing. This approach demonstrates a strategic preference for certainty and the mitigation of further legal fees, as both sides agreed to the specific sum of AED 269,241.26 rather than inviting the Registrar to adjudicate the reasonableness of the individual cost items.
What was the precise legal question addressed by the Court in the 25 April 2024 order regarding the finality of the costs settlement?
The Court was required to determine whether the agreement reached between the parties constituted a complete discharge of the Claimants' liability for costs. The legal issue centered on the formalization of the "Costs Sum" as a binding obligation that would preclude any future litigation or disputes regarding the Defendant's legal expenses. By issuing the order by consent, the Court affirmed that the sum of AED 269,241.26 serves as the definitive financial resolution, thereby extinguishing any further claims the Defendant might have held against the Claimants under the previous order dated 28 March 2024.
How did Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton formalize the payment deadline for the agreed costs sum?
The Court provided a clear, enforceable timeline for the satisfaction of the debt, ensuring that the settlement was not merely a theoretical agreement but a concrete obligation with a specific expiration for compliance. The order dictates the following:
The Claimants shall pay the Costs Sum to the Defendant by 4pm on 6 May 2024. 3.
This directive establishes a strict deadline, providing the Defendant with a clear mechanism for enforcement should the Claimants fail to remit the funds by the specified date. The inclusion of "Liberty to apply" further ensures that if any complications arise regarding the payment process, the parties retain the right to return to the Court for further directions.
Which Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the process of reaching a consent order for costs?
The procedural framework for this order is rooted in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those governing the settlement of costs and the entry of consent judgments. While the order itself is a product of party agreement, it relies on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to record such agreements as binding orders. The process is consistent with RDC Part 40, which allows for the entry of judgments by consent, and the general principles of cost recovery outlined in RDC Part 38, which encourages parties to reach agreements on costs to avoid the necessity of a detailed assessment under RDC Part 38.20.
How does the principle of "Liberty to Apply" function in the context of this specific consent order?
The inclusion of "Liberty to apply" in the order of 25 April 2024 serves as a procedural safeguard. In the context of a consent order, this clause allows either party to return to the Court of First Instance if the terms of the agreement are not met—for instance, if the payment of AED 269,241.26 is not made by the 6 May 2024 deadline. It does not reopen the merits of the underlying dispute, which was already dismissed, but provides a streamlined path for the Court to enforce the terms of the settlement without the need for a new claim.
What is the final disposition of the costs dispute in CFI 028/2021?
The final disposition is the formal recording of the agreed costs sum of AED 269,241.26. The Court has ordered that the Claimants pay this amount to the Defendant by 4:00 pm on 6 May 2024. Upon payment, the Defendant is barred from pursuing any further claims against the Claimants regarding these costs. The order effectively closes the file on the financial aspects of the litigation, providing a clean break for both parties.
What does this settlement suggest for practitioners regarding the management of costs in the DIFC?
The resolution of CFI 028/2021 highlights the efficacy of the DIFC Courts' consent order process in finalizing litigation. For practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the Registrar’s assessment process is a default mechanism that can—and often should—be avoided through proactive negotiation. By settling the quantum of costs, parties can avoid the significant administrative burden and legal costs associated with a formal assessment hearing. The use of a consent order provides the necessary judicial imprimatur to ensure that the settlement is enforceable, thereby providing finality and certainty for clients.
Where can I read the full judgment in Five Holding Limited and Five Hotel FZE v Qatar Insurance Company [2024] DIFC CFI 028?
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-0282021-1-five-holding-limited-2-five-hotel-fze-v-qatar-insurance-company-1. The document is also available via the following CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-028-2021_20240425.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 38 (Costs)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 40 (Consent Judgments)