What was the underlying dispute in Stelian Gheorghe v BSA Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates and what was the financial stake?
The litigation arose from a professional dispute between the Claimant, Stelian Gheorghe, and the Defendants, BSA Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates LLP and Jimmy Haoula. Following a substantive judgment delivered on 28 October 2025, which found in favor of the Defendants, the Court was tasked with the immediate assessment of the Defendants' legal costs. The scale of the original claim was substantial, reflecting the high-stakes nature of the professional services dispute.
In terms of the value of this case, the Claimant’s Claim Form asserted that the value of his claim was AED 25,732,058.28.
The assessment process was necessitated by the Court’s earlier order that the Claimant bear the Defendants' costs. The proceedings highlight the significant financial exposure parties face in the DIFC Court of First Instance when a claim of this magnitude is dismissed, particularly when the Court moves to an immediate assessment under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
Which judge presided over the immediate assessment of costs in CFI 045/2025?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 16 December 2025, following the submission of Statements of Costs by the First Defendant on 20 October 2025 and the Second Defendant on 3 November 2025.
How did the Claimant and Defendants approach the costs assessment process in CFI 045/2025?
The Defendants, BSA Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates LLP and Jimmy Haoula, filed detailed Statements of Costs, which included professional fees for legal work and significant disbursements related to counsel and court fees. The First Defendant claimed fees for work performed by Antonios Dimitrakopoulos, while the Second Defendant’s claim included a complex allocation of shared disbursements, specifically attributing 50% of external counsel fees to his own defense.
The Claimant’s participation in the assessment was notably absent. Despite the Court’s procedural directions, the Claimant failed to engage with the process.
The Claimant was directed to file submissions commenting on the Defendants’ Statement of Costs, but did not do so.
This lack of engagement left the Court to determine the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed amounts based solely on the evidence provided by the Defendants, reinforcing the importance of the receiving party’s burden of proof in cost assessments.
What was the precise legal question regarding the proportionality of costs that Justice Jhangiani had to resolve?
The Court was required to determine whether the costs claimed by the Defendants were "proportionately and reasonably incurred" and "proportionate and reasonable in amount" under RDC 38.2. The doctrinal issue centered on how to apply the test of proportionality in a case where the financial value of the claim was high, but the actual work performed required a nuanced assessment of complexity and effort.
Pursuant to RDC 38.2, when assessing costs on a standard basis the Court must be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that the costs were proportionately and reasonably incurred, and were proportionate and reasonable in amount.
The Court had to balance the Defendants' right to recover costs for high-level legal work against the overriding objective of the RDC, which mandates that costs must be proportionate to the issues at stake.
How did Justice Jhangiani apply the 'broadbrush' doctrine to the Defendants' costs?
In reaching the final assessment, Justice Jhangiani utilized the 'broadbrush' approach, a recognized judicial tool for ensuring that costs are not merely a mathematical calculation of hours multiplied by rates, but a reflection of the overall value and complexity of the matter.
Taking into account all the matters referred to at RDC 38.23 and set out above, and as is appropriate when assessing costs on an immediate basis, I apply a broadbrush approach in assessing the Defendants’ costs and in applying an appropriate discount to the full costs claimed such that the costs recovered are both reasonable and proportionate in accordance with RDC 38.2.
The Court specifically validated the quality of the legal representation, noting that the time and effort expended were commensurate with the difficulty of the case.
I find that the skill, effort, knowledge and responsibility of the legal team deployed by the Defendants, as well as the time spent on the matter, was appropriate to the complexity of the matter
By applying this discount, the Court ensured that the final figures—AED 137,000 for the First Defendant and AED 88,000 for the Second Defendant—remained within the bounds of reasonableness.
Which RDC rules and specific assessment criteria were applied by the Court?
The Court relied heavily on the RDC 38 series, which governs the immediate assessment of costs. Specifically, the Court referenced RDC 38.33 through 38.37, which outline the duties of parties to assist the judge with cost schedules. Furthermore, the Court applied the factors listed in RDC 38.23, which include the conduct of the parties, the value of the claim, the complexity of the questions raised, and the skill and responsibility involved.
The Court also emphasized the link between proportionality and the overriding objective.
RDC 38.24 provides that in applying the test of proportionality, the Court will have regard to RDC 1.6(3), which forms part of this Court’s overriding objective at RDC 1.
These rules collectively serve as the framework for the Court to scrutinize disbursements, such as the shared external counsel fees, ensuring that costs are not inflated by inefficient or duplicative work.
How did the Court handle the Second Defendant’s claim for shared disbursements?
The Court scrutinized the Second Defendant’s claim, which involved a 50% split of external counsel fees amounting to AED 130,737. The Court’s reasoning involved a careful adjustment of these figures to ensure that the Second Defendant was only recovering costs that were directly attributable to his defense, rather than allowing for an unverified or excessive recovery.
Adjusting the Second Defendant’s costs claimed such that only 50% of the expenses of AED 130,737 are claimed (equal to AED 65,368.50), the total costs claimed by the Second Defendant are AED 131,868.50 (AED 36,750.00 plus 29,750.00 plus 65,368.50).
This adjustment demonstrates the Court's commitment to transparency in shared disbursement claims, requiring parties to clearly delineate how costs are split between co-defendants.
What was the final disposition and the timeline for payment?
The Court concluded the assessment by ordering the Claimant to pay the assessed costs to the respective Defendants within a strict 14-day window. This order serves as a final resolution to the costs phase of the litigation.
The sums awarded to each Defendant are to be paid by the Claimant to each Defendant within 14 days of this Order.
The First Defendant was awarded AED 137,000.00, and the Second Defendant was awarded AED 88,000.00.
What are the practical implications for future DIFC litigants regarding costs assessments?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court will not rubber-stamp Statements of Costs, even in the absence of opposition from the paying party. Litigants must ensure that their cost schedules are meticulously prepared, particularly when claiming shared disbursements. The 'broadbrush' approach is not a license for parties to submit vague or inflated claims; rather, it is a mechanism for the Court to exercise its discretion to reach a fair and proportionate result. Future litigants should anticipate that the Court will scrutinize the relationship between the work done and the complexity of the case, and that failure to provide clear, itemized justifications for shared expenses will likely lead to significant downward adjustments.
Where can I read the full judgment in Stelian Gheorghe v BSA Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates [2025] DIFC CFI 045?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0452025-stelian-gheorghe-v-1-bsa-ahmad-bin-hezeem-associates-llp-2-jimmy-haoula-1
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