The DIFC Court of First Instance has issued a definitive order regarding the recovery of costs following a successful adjournment application by the Defendants in the high-stakes litigation between Byju’s Alpha Inc and Byju Raveendran and Divya Gokulnath.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the Claimant’s costs in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s entitlement to recover legal costs incurred due to the Defendants’ application to adjourn the Return Date hearing, which had been originally scheduled for 31 July and 1 August 2025. Following the Court’s decision to grant the adjournment in part, the Claimant sought reimbursement for both the costs of the adjournment application itself and the "costs thrown away" by the rescheduling of the substantive hearing.
The Claimant submitted detailed schedules requesting USD 51,736.67 for the costs incidental to the Adjournment Application and USD 143,835.68 for costs rendered redundant by the delay. The Court’s order finalized these amounts, confirming the liability of the Defendants to compensate the Claimant for these specific financial outlays. As noted in the Court’s order:
The Defendants shall pay the Claimant’s costs, assessed as follows: (a) USD 51,736.67 in respect of costs of and incidental to the Adjournment Application.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The matter was heard and determined by H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, issued on 31 October 2025, followed a series of procedural developments in the case, including the initial injunction application and the subsequent adjournment of the Return Date hearing.
How did the Defendants’ failure to respond to cost submissions influence the Court’s decision in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The Claimant filed detailed submissions outlining the basis for the requested costs, providing itemized schedules to justify the figures. Despite being given a clear opportunity to contest these figures or provide alternative submissions, the Defendants remained silent. This lack of engagement proved pivotal to the Court’s procedural approach.
The Defendants were given an opportunity to respond to the Claimant’s submissions but failed to do so.
Because the Defendants did not challenge the quantum or the methodology employed by the Claimant, the Court was not required to conduct a detailed, time-consuming assessment. Instead, the Court relied on the uncontested evidence provided by the Claimant to reach its final determination.
What was the primary legal question regarding the assessment of costs thrown away in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The doctrinal issue before the Court was the appropriate method for quantifying "costs thrown away" when a hearing is adjourned at the request of one party. The Court had to determine whether the Claimant’s methodology—which involved isolating a percentage of the overall costs for the Return Date Hearing—was a reasonable and proportionate proxy for the actual loss incurred. The Court was tasked with ensuring that the recovery did not include work that retained value for future hearings or work unrelated to the specific adjournment, thereby adhering to the principles of proportionality required under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
How did Justice Rene Le Miere apply the test of reasonableness and proportionality to the Claimant’s cost schedule?
Justice Le Miere adopted a summary assessment approach, evaluating the Claimant’s submissions against the standard of reasonableness. The Court scrutinized the methodology used to calculate the "costs thrown away," specifically noting that the Claimant had applied a 25% reduction to the overall costs of the Return Date Hearing to account for work that remained useful for the rescheduled proceedings.
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s costs have been calculated on a reasonable and proportionate basis, supported by itemised schedules and a conservative methodology.
The Court concluded that the Claimant’s approach was sufficiently conservative and that there was no evidence to suggest the costs were incurred improperly. By validating the 25% calculation, the Court established that the Claimant had appropriately deducted work that retained value, thereby satisfying the requirement that the costs awarded were strictly those "thrown away" by the adjournment.
Which specific procedural orders and previous rulings formed the basis for the costs award in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The Court’s authority to award these costs was derived from the earlier Adjournment Order issued by Justice Le Miere on 30 July 2025. That order had granted the Defendants' application to adjourn the Return Date hearing in part, while explicitly reserving the issue of costs.
Justice Rene Le Miere dated 30 July 2025, granting the Adjournment Application in part and ordering the Defendants to pay the Claimant’s costs of the Adjournment Application pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 (the “Adjournment Order”) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.
This order served as the jurisdictional anchor for the 31 October 2025 decision, confirming that the Defendants were liable for the costs incidental to the application and the costs rendered useless by the delay.
How did the Court justify the specific calculation of costs thrown away in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The Court accepted the Claimant’s calculation method as a fair representation of the wasted expenditure. The reasoning focused on the distinction between work that was entirely wasted and work that could be repurposed for the eventual hearing.
(b) The costs thrown away have been calculated as 25% of the Claimant’s overall costs for the Return Date Hearing, after appropriate deductions for work relating to other matters and work deemed to retain value.
By explicitly referencing these deductions, the Court demonstrated that it had performed a qualitative review of the bill of costs, ensuring that the Defendants were not penalized for the Claimant’s general litigation expenses, but only for the specific financial impact caused by the adjournment.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief ordered by the Court in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The Court ordered the Defendants to pay the total sum of USD 195,572.35. This amount was comprised of two distinct components: USD 51,736.67 for the costs of the Adjournment Application and USD 143,835.68 for the costs thrown away due to the adjournment.
The Court will order: (a) The Defendants shall pay the Claimant’s costs assessed as follows: (i) USD 51,736.67 in respect of costs of and incidental to the Adjournment Application. (ii) USD 143,835.68 in respect of costs thrown away due to the adjournment
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the summary assessment of costs?
This case reinforces the importance of active participation in cost assessment proceedings. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court is prepared to proceed with a summary assessment in the absence of opposition, and that failure to challenge a claimant’s cost submissions—even if the amounts appear significant—will likely result in the Court accepting the claimant’s methodology as reasonable and proportionate. Furthermore, the case provides a clear template for how "costs thrown away" should be calculated: by applying a percentage reduction to reflect work that retains value for future hearings, rather than seeking the entirety of the costs associated with the original hearing date.
Where can I read the full judgment in Byju’s Alpha Inc v Byju Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0502025-byjus-alpha-inc-v-1-byju-raveendran-2-divya-gokulnath-1
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)