Did the Defendant’s failure to comply with RDC 38.34 and 38.35 preclude an immediate assessment of costs in Dant Investment v Olive Green Holding?
The dispute arose following a judgment in favor of the Defendant, Olive Green Holding, which entitled it to recover costs from the Claimant, Dant Investment. The Claimant challenged the Defendant’s Statement of Costs, arguing that the documentation provided was insufficient to meet the procedural requirements of the RDC. Specifically, the Claimant asserted that the Defendant failed to provide the breakdown of hours, hourly rates, and fee-earner seniority required for a standard assessment.
The Court acknowledged the validity of this procedural objection. As noted in the judgment:
I accept the Claimant’s argument that the Defendant’s Statement of Costs (and accompanying document) as filed on 10 July 2025 does not comply with RDC 38.34 and RDC 38.35.
Despite this non-compliance, the Court declined to dismiss the costs claim entirely. Instead, Justice Jhangiani exercised the Court’s discretion to perform an immediate assessment to avoid the further expense and delay of a detailed assessment process, effectively balancing procedural rigor against the overriding objective of proportionality.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in CFI 038/2024 and in which division was the order issued?
The assessment was presided over by H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 18 August 2025, following the substantive judgment delivered by the same judge on 3 July 2025.
What were the specific arguments advanced by Dant Investment and Olive Green Holding regarding the Statement of Costs?
The Claimant, Dant Investment, argued that the Defendant’s failure to provide a compliant Statement of Costs should result in the denial of the costs claim. The Claimant’s position was that the Court should not entertain a request for costs where the receiving party has failed to adhere to the mandatory disclosure requirements set out in the RDC. As the Court summarized:
The Claimant contends that the Defendant’s Statement of Costs does not comply with RDC 38.34 and RDC 38.35 and its primary position is that the Claimant should not be allowed its costs in the absence of having produced a proper written statement of costs.
Conversely, the Defendant, Olive Green Holding, maintained that its submission was sufficient to justify the recovery of its expenditures. The Defendant had submitted a Statement of Costs claiming a total of USD 70,300, which included USD 50,000 in legal fees (billed on a lump-sum basis by FRM Legal Counsels) and USD 20,300 in Court fees. The Defendant’s filing included a certification of the costs incurred:
The Defendant’s stamp and a signature were affixed to the statement of costs, certifying that the costs set out were reasonably and properly incurred, and that the disbursements claimed were paid already.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the immediate assessment of costs under RDC 38.33?
The Court was tasked with determining whether it could—or should—proceed with an immediate assessment of costs under RDC 38.33 when the receiving party has failed to provide the itemized breakdown required by RDC 38.34 and 38.35. The doctrinal tension lay between the strict requirement for transparency in cost claims and the Court’s duty to manage cases justly and proportionately. The Court had to decide if the lack of information regarding hourly rates and fee-earner seniority necessitated a referral to a detailed assessment or if the Court possessed sufficient information to perform a summary assessment that remained fair to both parties.
How did Justice Jhangiani apply the test of proportionality to the Defendant’s non-compliant Statement of Costs?
Justice Jhangiani adopted a pragmatic approach, acknowledging that while the Defendant failed to provide the granular detail required by the RDC, the Court was not entirely without information. The judge determined that the interests of justice were best served by avoiding the additional costs that a detailed assessment would inevitably generate.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the available evidence to reach a reasonable and proportionate figure. The judge stated:
I find that I have the majority of the information relevant to immediately assessing the Defendant’s costs on a standard basis as set out at RDC 38.23, albeit not all of the information.
By weighing the Defendant’s procedural failure against the need for a final resolution, the Court arrived at a reduced figure for legal fees that it deemed reasonable, effectively penalizing the lack of transparency while still granting the Defendant a portion of its claimed costs.
Which specific RDC rules and sections were central to the Court’s analysis of the costs claim?
The Court’s analysis was anchored in RDC 38.33, which mandates that parties assist the judge in making an immediate assessment. The Court scrutinized the Defendant’s failure to adhere to RDC 38.34 (which requires a schedule of hours, rates, and seniority) and RDC 38.35 (which requires the use of Form P38/01). Furthermore, the Court applied RDC 38.2, which dictates that costs must be proportionately and reasonably incurred, and RDC 38.23, which lists the factors for assessing costs on a standard basis, including the amount involved and the complexity of the matter.
How did the Court utilize the RDC 38.23 factors to reach its final assessment of USD 45,000?
The Court utilized the RDC 38.23 factors to evaluate the reasonableness of the Defendant’s claim. While the Defendant sought USD 50,000 in legal fees, the Court found that the lack of detail necessitated a downward adjustment. The Court also addressed the Court fees separately, finding them to be a fixed and verifiable expense. Regarding the final award, the Court reasoned:
Taking into account all the information I have, as well as the Defendant’s failure to comply with RDC 38.4 and 38.5, I find that an award of USD 25,000 in respect of the Defendant’s legal fees is both reasonable and proportionate.
This figure, combined with the Court fees, formed the total award.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief ordered by the Court in CFI 038/2024?
The Court ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant a total of USD 45,000. This amount was broken down into two components: USD 20,000 for Court fees incurred during the defense and counterclaim, and USD 25,000 for legal fees. The Court rejected the Claimant’s argument that no counterclaim had been advanced, confirming the Defendant’s entitlement to the associated fees. The Court’s order was as follows:
The total amount to be awarded to the Defendant in respect of its costs, comprising its Court fees and legal fees, is therefore USD 45,000.
The Claimant was ordered to pay this sum within 14 days of the order.
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the filing of Statements of Costs?
This order serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Court expects strict adherence to the procedural requirements of RDC 38.34 and 38.35. Practitioners cannot rely on lump-sum invoices to satisfy the Court’s requirements for an immediate assessment. While the Court may exercise its discretion to assess costs despite non-compliance to save time and money, the receiving party risks a significant reduction in their recoverable legal fees if they fail to provide the necessary breakdown of hours and rates. Future litigants must ensure that their Statements of Costs are fully itemized and compliant with Form P38/01 to avoid the risk of a summary reduction by the Court.
Where can I read the full judgment in Dant Investment v Olive Green Holding [2025] DIFC CFI 038?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0382024-dant-investment-llc-v-olive-green-holding-ltd
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): 1.6(3), 38.2, 38.23, 38.24, 38.33, 38.34, 38.35, 38.36, 38.37