This consent order clarifies the procedural timeline for the submission and response to a revised Bill of Costs following a dispute over default costs certification in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
What specific procedural dispute necessitated the intervention of the DIFC Court in CFI 028/2023 between Globe Investment Holdings and the four named Defendants?
The litigation concerns the assessment of legal costs following the underlying proceedings in CFI 028/2023. The Defendants, comprising Hortin Holding Limited, Lodge Hill Limited, Westdene Investment Limited, and VS 1897 (Cayman) Limited, initiated detailed assessment proceedings on 16 February 2024 by filing a Bill of Costs. The dispute escalated when the Defendants sought a default costs certificate on 13 March 2024, presumably due to a lack of timely response or agreement regarding the initial bill.
Following the submission of a revised Bill of Costs on 2 April 2024, the parties reached a consensus to resolve the procedural impasse without further judicial determination on the merits of the costs themselves. The Court formalized this agreement, ensuring that the process for detailed assessment remains on track through a structured exchange of documentation. As noted in the order:
The Defendants shall file and serve a further revised Bill of Costs (“Revised BOC”) by 4pm (GST) on 13 May 2024.
Which judicial officer presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 028/2023 on 9 May 2024?
The consent order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton. The order was formally dated and issued on 9 May 2024 at 9:00 am within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
What were the respective procedural positions of Globe Investment Holdings and the Defendants regarding the assessment of costs?
The Defendants, acting as the parties seeking recovery of costs, had moved to commence detailed assessment proceedings on 16 February 2024. Their subsequent application for a default costs certificate on 13 March 2024 indicates that the Claimant, Globe Investment Holdings, had not satisfied the Defendants' expectations regarding the timeline or the quantum of the costs claimed.
By the time the matter reached the Assistant Registrar, the parties had negotiated a path forward. The Defendants agreed to provide a further revised Bill of Costs, effectively superseding the previous versions dated 16 February 2024 and 2 April 2024. This suggests a compromise where the Defendants accepted the need for further refinement of their claim, while the Claimant secured a defined window to review and respond to the new figures, thereby avoiding the immediate entry of a default costs certificate.
What was the precise procedural question the Court had to resolve regarding the timeline for the Revised BOC?
The Court was tasked with formalizing a timeline that would allow for the orderly progression of the detailed assessment process. The primary doctrinal issue was whether the Court should grant the parties’ request to reset the clock for the submission of a "Revised BOC" and the subsequent response period, thereby effectively staying the application for a default costs certificate. The Court had to ensure that the procedural requirements of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding the assessment of costs were satisfied while respecting the autonomy of the parties to reach a settlement on procedural steps.
How did Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton apply the principles of case management to facilitate the agreement between the parties?
The Assistant Registrar utilized the Court’s power to issue consent orders to manage the procedural lifecycle of the costs assessment. By adopting the timeline proposed by the parties, the Court ensured that the litigation would not be unnecessarily delayed by disputes over the validity of the previous Bill of Costs. The reasoning reflects a standard judicial preference for party-led resolution in procedural matters, provided the resulting order complies with the RDC. The specific timeline for the Claimant’s response was explicitly set to ensure fairness:
The Claimant shall file its response to the Revised BOC, if any, within 21 clear days from service of the Revised BOC.
This approach avoids the need for a contested hearing on the procedural status of the costs assessment, allowing the parties to focus on the substantive quantification of the legal fees involved.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the detailed assessment of costs and the issuance of default costs certificates?
While the order itself is a consent-based procedural direction, it operates within the framework of RDC Part 38, which governs the assessment of costs. Specifically, RDC 38.30 to 38.34 outlines the procedure for commencing detailed assessment proceedings. The Defendants’ initial application for a default costs certificate on 13 March 2024 was likely predicated on RDC 38.36, which allows a party to apply for a default costs certificate if the paying party fails to serve points of dispute within the prescribed time. By consenting to the filing of a "Revised BOC," the parties essentially agreed to waive the immediate consequences of the default application, resetting the procedural clock under the supervision of the Court.
How does the DIFC Court’s approach to consent orders in costs matters, as seen in CFI 028/2023, align with the objective of the RDC to deal with cases justly?
The Court’s decision to endorse the agreement between Globe Investment Holdings and the Defendants aligns with the overriding objective of the RDC, which is to enable the Court to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost. By allowing the parties to file a further revised Bill of Costs, the Court avoids the potential for satellite litigation regarding the validity of the previous filings. This procedural flexibility is a hallmark of the DIFC Court’s case management style, which prioritizes the efficient resolution of disputes over rigid adherence to procedural technicalities when parties are in agreement.
What was the final disposition of the application for a default costs certificate, and what order was made regarding the costs of this specific application?
The Court issued a consent order that effectively superseded the previous procedural status of the case. The Defendants were ordered to file and serve the Revised BOC by 13 May 2024, and the Claimant was granted 21 clear days to respond. Crucially, the Court made no order as to costs regarding this specific procedural application. This indicates that the parties agreed to bear their own costs for the negotiation and drafting of this consent order, preventing the costs assessment process from becoming further burdened by the costs of the procedural dispute itself.
What are the practical takeaways for practitioners regarding the management of detailed assessment proceedings in the DIFC?
Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court is highly amenable to consent orders that streamline the detailed assessment process, particularly when parties identify errors or require updates to a Bill of Costs. The case highlights that even after an application for a default costs certificate has been filed, there remains significant scope for negotiation. Practitioners should prioritize the timely service of a "Revised BOC" if discrepancies are identified, as this can prevent the Court from having to adjudicate on default applications. The 21-day response period granted to the Claimant serves as a benchmark for the time the Court considers reasonable for a party to review and respond to a revised bill of costs.
Where can I read the full judgment in Globe Investment Holdings v Hortin Holding [2024] DIFC CFI 028?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0282023-globe-investment-holdings-limited-v-1-hortin-holding-limited-2-lodge-hill-limited-3-westdene-investment-limited-4-vs-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-028-2023_20240509.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in the consent order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38 (Costs Assessment)