This order addresses the judicial assessment of costs following the unsuccessful Renewed Application for permission to appeal filed by Sadapay Technologies, resulting in a downward adjustment of the Claimant's bill due to excessive hourly rates and repetitive work.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the Claimant’s costs in Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies?
The dispute arose following the dismissal of the Defendant’s Renewed Application for permission to appeal. The Claimant, Eli Mydlarz, submitted a statement of costs totaling AED 59,600 for the work performed in responding to that application. The Court was tasked with determining whether this sum was reasonable and proportionate under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
On 29 January 2026, orders were made dismissing the Defendant's Renewed Application and ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs of the Renewed Application to be assessed in accordance with the procedure specified in those orders. The first step in that procedure has been implemented and the Claimant has filed a statement of costs climbing to AED 59,600.
The Court exercised its power of immediate assessment on the papers to resolve the discrepancy between the amount claimed and the amount deemed appropriate for the work performed. The full text of the order can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in CFI 035/2025?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin. The procedure was mandated by his own previous order dated 29 January 2026, which dismissed the Defendant's Renewed Application and directed that the quantum of the Claimant’s costs be assessed by him personally via an immediate assessment on the papers.
What were the respective positions of Eli Mydlarz and Sadapay Technologies regarding the costs claim?
The Claimant, Eli Mydlarz, sought recovery of AED 59,600, representing the hours worked by two senior counsel, each with 13 years of experience, at their standard hourly rates. The Defendant, Sadapay Technologies, chose not to engage with the assessment process.
The Defendant has not taken advantage of the opportunity to file submissions in opposition to the amount claimed.
Despite the Defendant’s silence, the Court maintained its duty to ensure that the costs awarded were reasonable and proportionate, refusing to rubber-stamp the Claimant's submitted figure without a judicial review of the underlying rates and time entries.
What was the primary legal question regarding the reasonableness of hourly rates under Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023?
The Court had to determine whether an hourly rate of AED 3,700 for a practitioner with 13 years of experience was permissible under the DIFC Courts' guidelines. The core issue was whether the practitioner’s status as "senior counsel" justified a rate that exceeded the cap for non-partner practitioners with over 10 years of experience, which is set at AED 3,298 under the current Practice Direction.
How did Chief Justice Wayne Martin apply the test of proportionality to the hours claimed in this matter?
The Court applied a two-fold test: first, checking the hourly rates against the Registrar's Practice Direction, and second, evaluating the efficiency of the work performed given the context of multiple similar cases. The judge noted that the legal team represented clients in three cases against the same Defendant, meaning the skeleton arguments were substantially similar.
As the practitioner is not said to be a partner, the costs claimed should be reduced to allow for the fact that the rate claimed for that practitioner is excessive.
The Court reasoned that because the drafting required for the Renewed Application was limited by the repetitive nature of the work across the three cases, the number of hours claimed was excessive. Consequently, the Court reduced the total claim to AED 45,000 to reflect a more reasonable expenditure of time and appropriate billing rates.
Which specific authorities and rules governed the assessment of costs in this case?
The assessment was governed by the RDC regarding the recovery of costs and the specific caps set out in Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023. The Court specifically referenced the range for practitioners with more than 10 years of experience, noting that the top of that range is AED 3,298.
The amount claimed is the sum of the hours worked at hourly rates provided for each of the two practitioners who worked on the case, each of whom is described as a senior counsel with 13 years’ experience.
The Court also relied on its inherent jurisdiction to conduct an "immediate assessment on the papers" as established in the 29 January 2026 Order, ensuring that the final award remained within the bounds of reasonableness.
How did the Court utilize the Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023 to evaluate the Claimant's bill?
The Court used the Practice Direction as a strict benchmark for hourly rates. It held that while the rate of AED 3,700 might be acceptable for a partner, it was objectively excessive for a non-partner practitioner, regardless of their 13 years of experience.
In respect of one of those practitioners, costs are claimed at an hourly rate of AED 3,700.
By identifying that the practitioner was not a partner, the Court effectively capped the recoverable rate at the maximum allowed for senior practitioners (AED 3,298), thereby necessitating a reduction in the total bill.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief awarded to Eli Mydlarz?
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs in the amount of AED 45,000. This figure represented a reduction of AED 14,600 from the original claim of AED 59,600.
Taking these matters into account the Claimant's costs are assessed in the amount of AED 45,000.
The order was issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton on 24 March 2026, finalizing the costs recovery process for the Renewed Application.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding costs recovery in repetitive litigation?
This case serves as a warning to practitioners that the DIFC Courts will scrutinize the proportionality of hours billed when a firm represents multiple clients in similar cases against the same defendant. Practitioners cannot expect to bill full, original drafting hours for each case if the work is substantially repetitive. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces that the Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023 is a hard ceiling; billing at rates exceeding the specified caps for non-partners will lead to automatic reductions, regardless of the practitioner's seniority or title.
Where can I read the full judgment in Eli Mydlarz v Sadapay Technologies [2026] DIFC CFI 035?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0352025-eli-mydlarz-v-sadapay-technologies-ltd-4. The CDN copy is available at https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-035-2025_20260324.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in this specific costs order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Registrar's Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)