This consent order addresses the procedural timeline for cost submissions following the dismissal of jurisdictional stay applications in a dispute involving Mad Atelier International B.V. and two individual defendants.
What was the specific procedural dispute in CFI 030/2022 that necessitated a consent order regarding costs submissions?
The lawsuit involves Mad Atelier International B.V. as the Claimant against Axel Manes and Catherine Zhilla as the First and Second Defendants, respectively. The core of the procedural friction arose from the dismissal of the Defendants' applications to stay the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds (the "JJC Stay Applications"). Following the court's initial ruling on these applications, the parties were tasked with submitting their respective positions on costs.
The original deadline for these submissions was set for 2 September 2022. However, because the court had not yet issued the formal reasons for the dismissal of the stay applications, the parties reached a consensus to defer the costs briefing. This ensured that the parties could tailor their submissions to the specific reasoning provided by the court, thereby avoiding premature or misaligned arguments. The court formalized this agreement through a consent order, which stipulated:
The deadline for the Claimant, the First Defendant, and the Second Defendant to make short submissions on costs shall be extended from 2 September 2022 to 10 calendar days after the date of notification to the parties of the reasons for the Order.
Which judge presided over the CFI 030/2022 proceedings and in which division of the DIFC Courts was this order issued?
The matter was presided over by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The consent order was issued on 5 September 2022, following the initial order dated 1 August 2022, which had previously addressed the substantive jurisdictional challenges raised by the defendants.
What were the positions of Mad Atelier International B.V., Axel Manes, and Catherine Zhilla regarding the extension of the costs submission deadline?
The parties, represented by their respective legal teams, adopted a collaborative stance regarding the procedural timeline. Rather than litigating the deadline, the Claimant and the two Defendants reached a mutual agreement to postpone the filing of their costs submissions. Their position was predicated on the practical necessity of reviewing the court’s forthcoming reasons for the dismissal of the stay applications. By aligning the deadline with the release of these reasons, the parties sought to ensure that their submissions on costs—which are often influenced by the court's findings on the merits of the stay applications—would be both relevant and efficient. This consensus allowed the court to bypass a contested hearing on the extension request.
What was the precise legal question the court had to answer regarding the procedural timeline in CFI 030/2022?
The court was required to determine whether it should grant an extension of time for the filing of costs submissions under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the court had to decide if the parties' request to link the deadline to the future notification of the reasons for the 1 August 2022 Order was consistent with the overriding objective of the RDC, which emphasizes the efficient and cost-effective management of litigation. The court had to ensure that the extension did not unduly delay the progress of the case while acknowledging that the parties' ability to make informed submissions was contingent upon the court's own timeline for delivering its written reasons.
How did H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the principle of party autonomy in the context of the consent order issued on 5 September 2022?
Justice Ali Al Madhani exercised his judicial discretion to formalize the agreement reached by the parties. By accepting the consent order, the court acknowledged that the parties were best positioned to manage their own procedural timelines when those timelines do not prejudice the court's schedule or the administration of justice. The court's reasoning was rooted in the procedural history of the case, specifically the initial order that had invited the parties to make submissions. As noted in the court's records:
Justice Ali Al Madhani issued on 1 August 2022 ordering that: (i) the JJC Stay Applications are dismissed; (ii) reasons to follow, and (iii) all parties are invited to make short submissions on costs by 4pm on 2 September 2022 (the “Order”).
By granting the extension, the court effectively modified its previous directive to accommodate the practical reality that the "reasons to follow" had not yet been disseminated.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the court's power to extend time for procedural filings?
While the order itself is a consent-based procedural instrument, the court’s authority to manage such timelines is derived from the RDC. Specifically, the court relies on its general case management powers under RDC Part 4, which allows the court to extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction, or court order. These powers are designed to ensure that the court can adapt to the specific needs of a case, such as the need for parties to review judicial reasoning before finalizing arguments on costs.
How does the "costs in the case" designation, as ordered in CFI 030/2022, impact the final recovery of legal expenses?
The court ordered that "costs shall be costs in the case." This is a standard procedural designation in the DIFC Courts, meaning that the costs incurred in relation to the stay applications and the subsequent extension will be awarded to the party that ultimately succeeds in the substantive litigation. This approach prevents the court from having to conduct a "mini-trial" on costs at every procedural juncture, instead deferring the final determination of who bears these costs until the conclusion of the proceedings. It serves as a neutral placeholder that preserves the rights of all parties until the final judgment is rendered.
What was the final disposition of the consent order issued on 5 September 2022 in CFI 030/2022?
The court granted the consent order as requested by the parties. The primary disposition was the formal extension of the deadline for costs submissions to 10 calendar days following the notification of the reasons for the 1 August 2022 Order. Additionally, the court confirmed that the costs associated with this procedural step would be "costs in the case," ensuring that the financial burden of this specific application remains subject to the final outcome of the litigation. No further monetary relief was awarded at this stage, as the order was strictly procedural.
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the timing of costs submissions following a stay application?
This case highlights the importance of aligning procedural deadlines with the availability of judicial reasoning. Practitioners should note that when a court dismisses a stay application with "reasons to follow," it is often prudent to proactively seek a consent order to extend deadlines for subsequent filings, such as costs submissions. Relying on an original deadline that precedes the release of the court's reasoning can lead to unnecessary administrative burdens. By securing a consent order, parties can avoid the risk of non-compliance and ensure that their submissions are fully informed by the court's specific findings, which is essential for effective advocacy regarding cost recovery.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mad Atelier International B.V. v (1) Axel Manes (2) Catherine Zhilla [CFI 030/2022]?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website at the following link: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0302022-mad-atelier-international-bv-v-1-axel-manes-2-catherine-zhilla. The document is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-030-2022_20220905.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Mad Atelier International B.V. v (1) Axel Manes (2) Catherine Zhilla | CFI 030/2022 | Primary matter |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 4 (Case Management)