This final costs certificate concludes the assessment proceedings arising from the underlying litigation between Lara Basem Musa Khoury and Mashreq Bank, formalizing the quantum of legal costs payable following multiple adverse orders against the Claimant.
What was the total financial exposure for Lara Basem Musa Khoury following the detailed assessment of costs in CFI 046/2021?
The dispute centered on the quantification of legal costs incurred by Mashreq Bank PSC throughout the protracted litigation process, which spanned both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. Following the conclusion of the substantive proceedings, the Defendant sought recovery of its legal expenses pursuant to several prior court orders. The Registrar was tasked with determining the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed by the Defendant, ultimately arriving at a significant financial liability for the Claimant.
The final determination required the Claimant to satisfy both the primary assessed costs and the additional costs incurred during the assessment hearing itself. The Registrar’s order finalized the total liability, confirming the specific amounts owed to the Defendant. As stated in the final certificate:
The Defendant’s costs pursuant to the Orders are hereby assessed in the sums contained in the Defendant’s completed bill of costs, namely AED 488,839.23.
This figure, combined with interest and the costs of the assessment hearing, represents the final resolution of the cost-recovery phase of this banking dispute.
Which judicial officer presided over the detailed assessment hearing for Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank on 15 May 2024?
The detailed assessment hearing was presided over by Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban of the DIFC Courts. The hearing took place on 15 May 2024, following the filing of the Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs by the Defendant on 25 January 2024. The Registrar’s role in this instance was to adjudicate the points of dispute raised by the Claimant against the Defendant’s bill of costs, ultimately issuing the Final Costs Certificate on 3 June 2024.
How did Mr P V Sheheen and Mr Karl Anderson frame their respective arguments regarding the assessment of costs?
Mr Karl Anderson, representing Mashreq Bank PSC, advocated for the recovery of the full bill of costs as submitted, relying on the series of favorable orders issued by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The Defendant’s position was that the costs were reasonably incurred and proportional to the complexity of the banking litigation. Conversely, Mr P V Sheheen, representing Lara Basem Musa Khoury, sought to challenge the quantum of the bill, filing points of dispute on 14 February 2024.
At the outset of the hearing, the Claimant attempted to delay the finality of the process by filing an application to adjourn the assessment proceedings. Mr Sheheen’s argument for an adjournment was met with opposition from the Defendant, and the application was ultimately dismissed by Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban, allowing the assessment to proceed to its conclusion.
What was the specific procedural question the Registrar had to resolve regarding the Claimant’s application for an adjournment?
The primary procedural question before the Registrar was whether there were sufficient grounds to grant the Claimant’s Application CA-007-2022/1, which sought an adjournment of the detailed assessment hearing. The Registrar had to determine if the interests of justice and the efficient management of court time necessitated a postponement or if the assessment should proceed as scheduled. By dismissing the application at the outset of the hearing, the Registrar affirmed the court's commitment to the timely resolution of cost assessments, ensuring that the litigation reached a definitive conclusion without further unnecessary delay.
How did Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban apply the standard basis of assessment to the Defendant’s bill of costs?
In assessing the costs, the Registrar applied the standard basis, which requires that only costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue are allowed. Any doubt as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount is resolved in favor of the paying party. The Registrar reviewed the Defendant’s bill of costs alongside the Claimant’s points of dispute and the Defendant’s points of reply.
The Registrar’s reasoning involved a careful reconciliation of the various orders for costs issued by Justice Maha Al Mheiri, Justice Lord Angus Glennie, and Chief Justice Zaki Azmi. The final assessment included interest on the principal sum, calculated as follows:
The Claimant shall pay interest on the Defendant’s assessed costs at a rate of 9% per annum for a period of 3 months in the total sum of AED 10,998.88.
This calculation reflects the court's application of interest to compensate the Defendant for the delay in receiving the costs awarded in the earlier stages of the litigation.
Which specific DIFC Court orders formed the basis for the Registrar’s assessment of costs?
The Registrar’s assessment was grounded in a series of prior judicial directives. These included the Order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 5 August 2021, which established the "costs in the case" principle; the Orders of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 29 March 2022 and 29 April 2022, which mandated the assessment of costs for the claim and the permission application; and the Order of Chief Justice Zaki Azmi dated 7 July 2022, alongside the DIFC Court of Appeal Order dated 28 November 2022. These orders collectively provided the legal authority for the Registrar to quantify the Defendant’s entitlement to costs on the standard basis.
How did the Registrar utilize the RDC rules to determine the costs of the detailed assessment hearing?
The Registrar exercised her authority under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to award the costs of the assessment hearing itself. Having dismissed the Claimant’s application for an adjournment, the Registrar determined that the Claimant should bear the financial burden of the assessment hearing, as the Defendant had been forced to attend and defend its bill of costs. This resulted in an immediate assessment of additional costs:
The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the Detailed Assessment Hearing, immediately assessed in the sum of AED 97,674.37.
This order serves as a deterrent against the filing of meritless applications that serve only to prolong the assessment process.
What was the final disposition and the deadline for the Claimant to satisfy the assessed costs?
The final disposition required the Claimant to pay the total sum of the assessed costs, the accrued interest, and the costs of the assessment hearing. The Registrar set a strict deadline for the satisfaction of these debts to ensure finality. The order specified:
The Claimant shall pay the Defendant the sums set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above by no later than 4pm (GST) on Monday, 17 June 2024.
Failure to comply with this order by the specified date would expose the Claimant to further enforcement proceedings under the RDC.
What are the wider implications for litigants regarding the finality of costs assessments in the DIFC?
This case highlights the rigorous approach taken by the DIFC Courts in finalizing cost assessments. Practitioners must anticipate that once a bill of costs is filed and points of dispute are exchanged, the court will prioritize the efficient conclusion of the assessment. The dismissal of the Claimant’s adjournment application underscores that the court will not tolerate procedural tactics that delay the recovery of costs by a successful party. Litigants should be prepared for the immediate assessment of costs incurred during the assessment hearing itself, which can significantly increase the total financial liability if an application is deemed unnecessary or obstructive.
Where can I read the full judgment in Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank [CFI 046/2021]?
The full text of the Final Costs Certificate can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0462021-ca-0072022-lara-basem-musa-khoury-v-mashreq-bank-psc or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-046-2021_20240603.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)