This consent order formalizes the final stage of the litigation between Mr Shiraz Mahmood and Standard Chartered Bank DIFC, establishing the procedural framework for the assessment of legal costs following the substantive judgment delivered on 1 October 2024.
What was the nature of the dispute between Mr Shiraz Mahmood and Standard Chartered Bank DIFC that necessitated this costs order?
The litigation in CFI 044/2021 involved a banking dispute between the Claimant, Mr Shiraz Mahmood, and the Defendant, Standard Chartered Bank DIFC. Following the substantive judgment handed down by Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 1 October 2024, the parties were required to resolve the outstanding issue of legal costs. The current order serves as a procedural mechanism to quantify the financial liability for costs incurred throughout the proceedings.
This matter follows a series of earlier procedural developments in the same case family, including:
SHIRAZ MAHMOOD v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK DIFC [2021] DIFC CFI 044 — Procedural extension of time via consent order (06 October 2021)
SHIRAZ MAHMOOD v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2021] DIFC CFI 044 — Procedural extension for immediate judgment response (21 November 2021)
SHIRAZ MAHMOOD v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2021] DIFC CFI 044 — Procedural variation of immediate judgment timelines (12 December 2021)
Which judge presided over the costs assessment order in CFI 044/2021?
The consent order was issued by the DIFC Court of First Instance on 21 October 2024, following the substantive judgment delivered by Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 1 October 2024. The order was formally issued by Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton.
What were the respective positions of Mr Shiraz Mahmood and Standard Chartered Bank DIFC regarding the recovery of legal costs?
Following the judgment of 1 October 2024, the parties engaged in negotiations to avoid a contested hearing on costs. By reaching a consensus, the Claimant and Defendant agreed that the Claimant would bear the Defendant's costs on the standard basis. This agreement effectively bypassed the need for a formal application for costs under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), allowing the parties to move directly to the quantum assessment phase.
What legal question did the Court have to resolve regarding the assessment of costs on the papers?
The primary issue before the Court was the establishment of a structured timeline for the submission of evidence regarding the quantum of costs. The Court had to determine the sequence of filings to ensure that the assessment could be conducted fairly "on the papers" without the necessity of an oral hearing. This required the Court to define the specific windows for the service of the statement of costs, the Claimant’s objections or submissions, and the Defendant’s final response.
How did the Court structure the timeline for the assessment of costs under the consent order?
The Court adopted a sequential filing schedule to facilitate an efficient assessment of the costs claimed by the Defendant. The process is governed by the following directives:
Within 21 days of this Order, the Defendant shall file and serve a copy of its statement of costs.
Within 21 days of service of the Defendant’s statement of costs, the Claimant shall file and serve its submissions on the quantum of the costs claimed by the Defendant.
Within 21 days of service of the Claimant’s submissions, the Defendant shall file and serve responsive submissions.
This structured approach ensures that the Trial Judge has a complete evidentiary record before making a final determination on the quantum of costs.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the standard basis of cost assessment applied in this case?
The assessment of costs in this matter is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which outlines the general rules about costs. Specifically, RDC 38.17 and 38.18 provide the framework for the assessment of costs on the standard basis. Under the standard basis, the Court will only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue and which were reasonably incurred. Any doubt as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or proportionate is resolved in favour of the paying party, Mr Shiraz Mahmood.
How does the DIFC Court approach the assessment of costs on the papers?
The Court’s approach to assessing costs on the papers is designed to minimize the expenditure of judicial and party resources. By requiring the parties to exchange statements of costs and written submissions, the Court ensures that the Trial Judge can review the proportionality and reasonableness of the legal fees without the need for a formal hearing. This practice aligns with the overriding objective of the RDC to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost.
What is the final disposition regarding the payment of costs in CFI 044/2021?
The Court ordered that the Claimant, Mr Shiraz Mahmood, shall pay the Defendant’s costs on the standard basis. The order mandates that the Trial Judge will make an immediate assessment of these costs on the papers once the exchange of submissions is complete. No specific monetary amount was fixed in the order; rather, the quantum will be determined following the submission of the Defendant's statement of costs and the subsequent responses from the Claimant.
What are the practical implications for litigants regarding the assessment of costs on the papers?
This order highlights the preference of the DIFC Courts for resolving costs disputes through structured, paper-based submissions rather than oral hearings. Litigants should anticipate that once a substantive judgment is delivered, the Court will expect strict adherence to timelines for the exchange of cost statements. Failure to comply with these timelines can lead to adverse procedural consequences. Practitioners should ensure that their statements of costs are meticulously prepared, as the "standard basis" assessment requires clear evidence of proportionality and reasonableness to avoid significant reductions by the Court.
Where can I read the full judgment in MR SHIRAZ MAHMOOD v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK DIFC [2024] DIFC CFI 044?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0442021-mr-shiraz-mahmood-v-standard-chartered-bank-difc or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-044-2021_20241021.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 (Costs)