This order confirms the DIFC Court’s strict stance on litigation conduct, awarding AED 850,000 in indemnity costs against a claimant that pursued a "hopeless" and "contrived" claim while misrepresenting prior judicial outcomes.
What was the nature of the dispute between Vision Investment and Holdings and Mahdi Amjad that led to the AED 850,000 costs order?
The litigation concerned a claim brought by Vision Investment and Holdings Limited against Mahdi Amjad, centered on an alleged personal undertaking within a Loan Settlement Agreement. The Claimant sought to enforce obligations that the Court ultimately determined had been superseded by subsequent agreements to which the Respondent was not a party. The dispute was characterized by the Court as a "contrived" attempt to bypass the proper legal channels, specifically noting that the legitimate party to the underlying transaction was Mr. Al Tabari, not the Claimant.
The Court’s assessment of the case’s merits was scathing, highlighting that the Claimant persisted in pursuing claims that had already been addressed or dismissed in other jurisdictions. As noted in the Court’s reasoning:
The costs of the Claim and the costs of the Permission to Appeal Application are payable on the Indemnity basis because the conduct of this matter by the Claimant was outside the norm. The Claim was contrived in circumstances where it was obvious that the proper Claimant was Mr Al Tabari and the bringing of a hopeless Claim was compounded by a misrepresentation prior to the proceedings that the Dubai Court had ordered Town Square and the Respondent (and one other entity) to pay the sum claimed in these proceedings (when the Dubai Court had dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction). Further, the Claimant persisted in making a claim for various sums which had already been struck out by an order of 14 January 2024. The Claimant/ Appellant’s conduct was unreasonable to a high degree in connection with this litigation and the accumulation of these factors take the Claim so far out of the norm as to justify indemnity costs.
Which judge presided over the CFI 053/2022 order issued on 30 May 2025?
The order was issued by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The decision followed the Court’s earlier judgment dated 9 April 2025, which had already signaled the lack of merit in the Claimant’s position.
What were the specific legal arguments advanced by Vision Investment and Holdings in their application for permission to appeal?
Vision Investment and Holdings argued that the Court erred in its interpretation of the Loan Settlement Agreement, specifically contending that Mahdi Amjad’s signature could be construed as a personal guarantee or undertaking to bind him personally, rather than merely binding the entity Town Square. The Claimant sought to invoke theories of third-party beneficiary rights and unjust enrichment to maintain the viability of the claim against the Respondent.
In opposition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s position was legally untenable. The Respondent highlighted that the Addendum to the Loan Settlement Agreement—which replaced the original obligations—did not include any personal undertaking from Mr. Amjad. Furthermore, the Respondent maintained that the Claimant lacked standing, as the contractual rights in question belonged exclusively to Mr. Al Tabari. The Court ultimately agreed with the Respondent, finding that the Claimant’s arguments failed to grasp the fundamental shift in contractual obligations created by the Addendum.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis?
The Court had to determine whether the Claimant’s conduct throughout the proceedings met the high threshold required to depart from the standard basis of costs assessment. Specifically, the Court addressed whether the combination of pursuing a "hopeless" claim, misrepresenting the outcome of prior Dubai Court proceedings, and persisting with claims that had been previously struck out constituted conduct "outside the norm." The doctrinal issue centered on the Court’s discretionary power under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to penalize unreasonable litigation conduct by shifting the burden of costs to an indemnity basis, thereby ensuring the successful party is more fully compensated for the expense of defending against meritless litigation.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test for indemnity costs in this matter?
Justice Cooke applied a rigorous standard, evaluating the cumulative effect of the Claimant's procedural and substantive failures. The Court found that the Claimant’s actions were not merely unsuccessful but were actively unreasonable. By misrepresenting the status of a prior Dubai Court judgment—claiming it was a victory when it was actually a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction—the Claimant breached the duty of candor expected in court filings.
The Court’s reasoning for the indemnity award was explicit:
The Claimant/ Appellant’s conduct was unreasonable to a high degree in connection with this litigation and the accumulation of these factors take the Claim so far out of the norm as to justify indemnity costs.
Because the Court concluded that the conduct was "outside the norm," it determined that the standard proportionality test—which usually limits recoverable costs—did not apply. Consequently, the Court focused solely on whether the costs incurred by the Respondent were unreasonably incurred, ultimately finding the requested sum of AED 850,000 to be appropriate.
What specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were central to the Court’s decision on costs?
The Court’s decision was governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which provide the framework for summary assessment and the criteria for awarding costs on an indemnity basis. While the RDC generally favors the standard basis, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs based on the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant. The Court also referenced the previous order of 14 January 2024, which had struck out certain claims, as evidence of the Claimant’s persistent and unreasonable litigation strategy.
How did the Court utilize the concept of "realistic prospects of success" in refusing the appeal?
The Court utilized the "realistic prospects of success" test as a gatekeeping mechanism for the permission to appeal application. Justice Cooke determined that the Claimant’s Notice of Appeal failed to engage with the core findings of the 9 April 2025 judgment. Specifically, the Court noted that the Claimant failed to provide a "good answer" to the fact that the Addendum replaced the original Loan Settlement Agreement obligations without any personal guarantee from the Respondent. By failing to address these fundamental contractual points, the appeal was deemed to have no realistic prospect of success, leading to the refusal of the application and the subsequent assessment of costs on an indemnity basis.
What was the final disposition regarding the monetary relief and costs awarded to Mahdi Amjad?
The Court refused the Claimant’s permission to appeal and ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent’s costs of the Claim and the appeal application on an indemnity basis. The total amount awarded was AED 850,000. The Court ordered that a sum of USD 100,000, previously paid into Court as security for costs, be released to the Respondent as part settlement. The balance of the AED 850,000 is payable within 21 days of the date of the order.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners in the DIFC?
This order serves as a stern warning to litigants who pursue claims that are either legally hopeless or factually misrepresented. Practitioners must anticipate that the DIFC Court will not hesitate to award indemnity costs when a party’s conduct is deemed "outside the norm." The ruling emphasizes that misrepresenting the outcomes of other proceedings—particularly those in the onshore Dubai Courts—is a significant factor that will influence the Court’s view on the reasonableness of a party’s litigation strategy. Furthermore, it reinforces that once indemnity costs are awarded, the standard proportionality arguments that might otherwise reduce a costs bill are effectively discarded, leaving the losing party liable for a much higher financial burden.
Where can I read the full judgment in Vision Investment and Holdings v Mahdi Amjad [2025] DIFC CFI 053?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0532022-vision-investment-and-holdings-limited-v-mahdi-amjad-5
CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-053-2022_20250530.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific external precedents cited in this order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (regarding costs and assessment)