This order addresses the final quantification of legal costs payable to the Third Defendant, Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa, following the conclusion of substantive proceedings in CFI-047-2017.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the Third Defendant’s legal costs in Commercial Bank of Dubai v Totora Restaurant & Lounge?
The litigation involved a claim brought by Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C. against multiple parties, including M/S Totora Restaurant & Lounge LLC, Mr. Ali Sidani, and Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa. Following the resolution of the underlying dispute, the Third Defendant sought to recover legal costs incurred during the proceedings. The dispute centered on the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed by the Third Defendant, which necessitated a formal detailed assessment process under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
The Third Defendant initiated this process by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bills of Costs and a corresponding Schedule of Costs on 16 April 2018. The Claimant, Commercial Bank of Dubai, contested these figures by filing Points of Dispute, to which the Third Defendant responded with a formal Reply. The court was tasked with reconciling these competing positions to arrive at a final, enforceable figure. The court’s determination is summarized as follows:
The Claimant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of AED 19,191.36 within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.
Which judicial officer presided over the assessment of costs in CFI-047-2017?
The assessment was conducted by Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi Kirk of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 15 November 2018, following a comprehensive review of the procedural history, including the prior orders of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 1 March 2018 and the order with reasons issued by Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser on 21 June 2018.
What were the respective positions of Commercial Bank of Dubai and the Third Defendant regarding the bill of costs?
The Claimant, Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C., challenged the Third Defendant’s initial bill of costs by filing Points of Dispute. The Claimant’s position was that the costs claimed by Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa were either excessive or not properly recoverable under the RDC. By challenging specific line items, the Claimant sought to reduce the total liability imposed upon it by the court’s earlier cost-shifting orders.
Conversely, the Third Defendant, Shaikha Raneya Hamad Mubarak Hamad Al Khalifa, maintained that the costs incurred were necessary and reasonable in the context of defending the claim. Through the filing of a Reply to the Claimant’s Points of Dispute, the Third Defendant justified the expenditure, arguing that the legal work performed was essential to the defense and that the quantum reflected the complexity of the matter. The Deputy Registrar reviewed these filings alongside the Schedule of Costs to determine the final recoverable amount.
What was the precise legal question the court had to answer regarding the assessment of costs under RDC Part 40?
The court was required to determine the quantum of costs to be awarded to the Third Defendant following a detailed assessment. The primary legal issue was the application of RDC Part 40, which governs the procedure for the detailed assessment of costs in the DIFC Courts. The court had to decide whether the costs submitted by the Third Defendant were reasonable and proportionate, and to what extent the Claimant’s Points of Dispute necessitated a reduction in the final award.
This process required the Deputy Registrar to act as an adjudicator, balancing the Third Defendant’s right to be indemnified for reasonable legal expenses against the Claimant’s right to ensure that only properly incurred costs were recovered. The court had to ensure that the final assessment complied with the principles of cost recovery established in the DIFC, ensuring that the resulting figure of AED 19,191.36 was both accurate and legally sound.
How did Deputy Registrar Nour Hineidi Kirk apply the principles of detailed assessment to the Third Defendant’s bill?
The Deputy Registrar’s reasoning involved a methodical review of the procedural history and the specific filings submitted by the parties. By examining the Notice of Commencement of Assessment, the Points of Dispute, and the Reply, the court applied the standards set out in RDC Part 40 to verify the legitimacy of each claimed expense. The court also took into account the prior judicial orders of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani and Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser, which provided the necessary context for the cost-shifting entitlement.
The assessment process concluded that the total recoverable costs, inclusive of the costs of the assessment itself, amounted to AED 19,191.36. The court’s decision-making process ensured that the final figure was definitive, leaving no room for further dispute regarding the specific amount owed. As noted in the order:
The Claimant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of AED 19,191.36 within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.
Which specific RDC rules and prior judicial orders informed the court’s decision in CFI-047-2017?
The court’s authority to assess these costs is derived directly from RDC Part 40, which provides the framework for the detailed assessment of costs. This rule allows the court to scrutinize bills of costs when parties cannot reach an agreement on the amount payable. The Deputy Registrar specifically cited RDC Part 40 as the basis for the assessment of the Third Defendant’s costs.
Furthermore, the court relied upon the procedural history established by previous orders in the same case. Specifically, the order of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 1 March 2018 and the order with reasons of Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser dated 21 June 2018 were essential to the court’s review. These documents established the underlying liability for costs, allowing the Deputy Registrar to focus exclusively on the quantification of the bill rather than the entitlement to costs itself.
How did the court utilize the prior orders of Justice Ali Al Madhani and Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser in this assessment?
The prior orders were used as the foundational basis for the Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction to assess the costs. Justice Ali Al Madhani’s order of 1 March 2018 served as the primary authority confirming the Third Defendant’s entitlement to recover costs from the Claimant. Without this established entitlement, the detailed assessment process under RDC Part 40 would not have been triggered.
The order with reasons from Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser, dated 21 June 2018, provided the necessary procedural context and reasoning that guided the Deputy Registrar in evaluating the reasonableness of the costs. By reviewing these documents, the Deputy Registrar ensured that the final assessment was consistent with the court’s previous determinations regarding the merits of the case and the allocation of responsibility for legal expenses.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted to the Third Defendant?
The court ordered that the Third Defendant’s costs be assessed at a total of AED 19,191.36. This amount represents the final, binding figure for the costs incurred by the Third Defendant in the proceedings. The Claimant, Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C., was ordered to pay this sum to the Third Defendant within a strict timeframe of fourteen days from the date of the order.
Additionally, the order specified that the costs associated with the assessment process itself were included within this total figure of AED 19,191.36. This effectively closed the matter of costs for the Third Defendant, providing a clear and enforceable mandate for the Claimant to satisfy the debt.
What are the practical implications for litigants regarding the detailed assessment of costs under RDC Part 40?
This case highlights the importance of meticulous record-keeping and the strategic use of the RDC Part 40 assessment process. For claimants and respondents alike, the assessment stage is not merely a formality but a rigorous judicial review where specific line items are subject to challenge. Practitioners must be prepared to justify every aspect of their bill of costs, as the court will scrutinize the reasonableness and proportionality of the fees claimed.
Furthermore, the case demonstrates that once a court has issued an order for costs, the subsequent assessment process is highly structured. Litigants should anticipate that the court will rely heavily on the procedural history and prior orders to streamline the assessment. The inclusion of the costs of the assessment within the final award serves as a reminder that prolonged disputes over costs can lead to additional financial liability for the party that unsuccessfully challenges the bill.
Where can I read the full judgment in Commercial Bank of Dubai P.S.C. v M/S Totora Restaurant & Lounge LLC [2018] DIFC CFI 047?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at the following link: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0472017-commercial-bank-dubai-psc-v-1-ms-totora-restaurant-and-lounge-llc-2-ali-abdullah-al-sidani-3-shaikha-raneya-hamad-mu-1
The text is also available via the CDN at: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-047-2017_20181115.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Order of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani | 1 March 2018 | Established entitlement to costs |
| Order of Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser | 21 June 2018 | Provided procedural context for assessment |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 40