This consent order clarifies the procedural timeline for the submission of revised cost documentation in the ongoing dispute between Globe Investment Holdings and its five co-defendants, including Commercial Bank of Dubai.
What is the nature of the dispute between Globe Investment Holdings and the Commercial Bank of Dubai regarding the Bill of Costs in CFI 028/2023?
The litigation, registered as CFI 028/2023, involves a complex multi-party dispute where the Defendants initiated detailed assessment proceedings following the underlying substantive matter. The current procedural impasse concerns the quantification of legal costs, specifically the Defendants' obligation to provide a refined Bill of Costs (BOC) to the Claimant. The dispute reached a critical juncture when the Defendants sought a default costs certificate on 13 March 2024, following the initial filing of their Bill of Costs on 16 February 2024.
The parties have engaged in a series of negotiations to finalize the quantum of costs, necessitating multiple revisions to the documentation. The court’s intervention was required to formalize the timeline for these revisions, ensuring that the Claimant has adequate opportunity to review the figures before the assessment proceeds. As noted in the formal order:
Paragraph 1 of the 9 May Order shall be amended to read as follows: “The Defendants shall file and serve a further revised Bill of Costs (“Revised BOC”) by 4pm Gulf Standard Time on 14 May 2024”. 2.
The matter remains focused on the procedural mechanics of cost recovery rather than the substantive merits of the original claim. Further details regarding the case history can be found at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0282023-globe-investment-holdings-limited-v-1-commercial-bank-dubai-2-hortin-holding-limited-3-lodge-hill-limited-4-westdene-5
Which judicial officer presided over the consent order in CFI 028/2023 and in which division of the DIFC Courts was this matter heard?
The consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton, sitting within the Court of First Instance of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. The order was formally issued on 15 May 2024 at 10:00 am, following an agreement reached between the parties to adjust the previously established deadline for the filing of the Revised Bill of Costs.
What were the respective positions of Globe Investment Holdings and the Commercial Bank of Dubai regarding the filing of the Revised Bill of Costs?
The parties, having reached a consensus on 7 May 2024, sought to amend the existing procedural timeline established by the 9 May Order. The Defendants, comprising Commercial Bank of Dubai, Hortin Holding Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, Westdene Investment Limited, and 1897 (Cayman) Limited, required additional time to finalize their Revised Bill of Costs.
The Claimant, Globe Investment Holdings, consented to this extension, reflecting a cooperative approach to the detailed assessment process. By jointly requesting the amendment, the parties avoided the need for a contested hearing, opting instead for a consent order to govern the submission of the Revised BOC. This reflects a strategic decision to prioritize the accuracy of the cost documentation over the strict adherence to the original 13 May 2024 deadline.
What was the specific legal question the court had to answer regarding the amendment of the 9 May Order?
The court was tasked with determining whether it should exercise its discretion under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to grant a formal variation to a previously issued consent order. The primary issue was not one of substantive law, but rather a procedural request to extend a deadline for the service of a Revised Bill of Costs. The court had to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC—to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost—and that the consent of all parties was clearly established before issuing the revised directive.
How did Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton apply the principles of procedural cooperation in the issuance of the 15 May 2024 order?
Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton exercised the court's authority to facilitate the parties' agreement, ensuring that the procedural timeline remained orderly. By formalizing the agreement through a consent order, the court minimized the risk of further disputes regarding the timeliness of the cost submissions. The reasoning focused on the efficiency of the assessment process, allowing the parties to resolve the quantum of costs without further judicial intervention. As the order states:
Paragraph 1 of the 9 May Order shall be amended to read as follows: “The Defendants shall file and serve a further revised Bill of Costs (“Revised BOC”) by 4pm Gulf Standard Time on 14 May 2024”. 2.
This approach underscores the court's role in managing the administrative lifecycle of a case, particularly when parties are actively negotiating the final stages of cost recovery.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory frameworks govern the detailed assessment of costs in DIFC CFI 028/2023?
The detailed assessment process in the DIFC is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which outlines the procedure for the assessment of costs. Specifically, RDC 38.29 through 38.45 provide the framework for the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings, the filing of the Bill of Costs, and the consequences of failing to serve a Bill of Costs within the prescribed time. The Defendants' initial filing on 16 February 2024 followed the requirements of RDC 38.30, while the request for a default costs certificate on 13 March 2024 invoked the provisions of RDC 38.35.
How do the principles of cost assessment established in previous DIFC jurisprudence influence the handling of the Bill of Costs in this matter?
While no specific precedents were cited in this consent order, the court’s approach aligns with the established practice of encouraging parties to reach a settlement on costs before a full hearing is required. The DIFC Courts consistently emphasize that the Bill of Costs must be accurate and served in accordance with the RDC to avoid the imposition of default certificates. The court’s willingness to amend the deadline demonstrates a preference for the "cards-on-the-table" approach, where parties are given sufficient time to prepare comprehensive documentation, thereby reducing the likelihood of protracted litigation over the costs themselves.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the Defendants' request and the allocation of costs for this specific application?
The court granted the request by consent, ordering that the deadline for the filing and service of the Revised Bill of Costs be extended to 14 May 2024. Regarding the costs of the application itself, the court made no order as to costs, meaning each party is responsible for their own legal expenses incurred in securing this specific procedural amendment.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners handling detailed assessment proceedings in the DIFC?
This case highlights the importance of maintaining strict compliance with procedural deadlines even when parties are in the midst of negotiations. Practitioners should note that while the court is willing to facilitate extensions via consent orders, such requests should be made well in advance of the deadline to avoid the risk of a default costs certificate being triggered. The case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts prioritize the orderly progression of cost assessments and that procedural cooperation is the most effective way to manage the administrative burden of multi-party litigation.
Where can I read the full judgment in GLOBE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS v COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI [2024] DIFC CFI 028?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0282023-globe-investment-holdings-limited-v-1-commercial-bank-dubai-2-hortin-holding-limited-3-lodge-hill-limited-4-westdene-5 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-028-2023_20240515.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 (Detailed Assessment of Costs)