This order addresses the immediate assessment of costs following the withdrawal of an adjournment application and the procedural management of expert evidence ahead of a scheduled trial.
What was the specific dispute regarding the AED 370,110.19 in costs claimed by Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC in CFI 053/2024?
The litigation involves a dispute between Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC (the Claimant) and Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited (the Defendant). The immediate controversy arose from the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-053-2024/5, which sought two distinct forms of relief: an adjournment of the trial scheduled for January 2026 (Application Part 1) and permission to adduce further expert evidence (Application Part 2).
Following the withdrawal of the adjournment request by the Defendant during the pre-trial review, the Court was tasked with assessing the costs incurred by the Claimant in responding to these applications. The total costs claimed by the Claimant for both parts of the application amounted to AED 370,110.19. The central dispute centered on the appropriate allocation of these costs, specifically what portion should be attributed to the dismissed adjournment application versus the adjourned expert evidence application.
The total costs claimed for the Application by the Claimant were AED 370,110.19 (the “Application Costs”).
The parties held divergent views on the apportionment of these costs. The Claimant contended that a significant majority of the work was necessitated by the adjournment application, while the Defendant argued for a much lower percentage. The Court’s resolution of this allocation was a prerequisite to the final assessment of the amount payable to the Claimant. [Source: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0532024-qatar-general-insurance-reinsurance-company-qspc-v-emrgent-risk-solutions-limited-1]
Which judge presided over the pre-trial review of CFI 053/2024 and when was the order issued?
The pre-trial review (PTR) was heard by H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani of the DIFC Court of First Instance on 15 December 2025. Following the hearing, the formal Order with Reasons was issued by the Court on 17 December 2025.
What were the specific legal arguments advanced by the parties regarding the allocation of the AED 370,110.19 in Application Costs?
The Claimant argued that the complexity of the litigation and the volume of work required to respond to the Defendant’s applications justified a high recovery. Specifically, the Claimant asserted that its legal team was appropriately resourced across different levels of seniority to manage the heavy workload, which included the preparation of a 1,500-page bundle. Regarding the apportionment of the total costs, the Claimant submitted that between 50% and 66% of the total costs should be allocated to the dismissed Application Part 1.
The Claimant argued in oral submissions that half to two-thirds of the Application costs should be allocated to its costs of the Application Part 1.
Conversely, the Defendant challenged the Claimant’s costs schedule on several grounds. It argued that the work performed on documentation was excessive, that the Claimant’s legal team was over-resourced for the task, and that the presence of two Counsel at the PTR was unnecessary. The Defendant proposed that only 30% to 40% of the total Application Costs should be attributed to the adjournment application, significantly lower than the Claimant’s estimate.
What was the doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the assessment of costs under RDC 38.2?
The Court was required to determine the appropriate quantum of costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant following the dismissal of the adjournment application. The doctrinal challenge lay in applying the standard basis of assessment while ensuring that the final figure was both reasonable and proportionate. The Court had to balance the Claimant’s actual expenditure against the Defendant’s objections regarding over-resourcing and excessive document review, all while adhering to the principles of proportionality mandated by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
How did H.E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani apply the broadbrush approach to assess the Claimant’s costs?
Justice Jhangiani adopted a pragmatic approach to the assessment, acknowledging that a granular, line-by-line analysis of every item in the costs schedule was not required for an immediate assessment. Instead, the Court utilized a "broadbrush" methodology to reach a figure that reflected the work reasonably performed while discounting items that appeared excessive or disproportionate.
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 Claimant’s costs of Application 1, 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.
By applying this discount, the Court ensured that the Defendant was not unfairly burdened by the Claimant’s potentially over-resourced legal team, while still compensating the Claimant for the necessary work performed in opposing the adjournment.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural factors guided the Court’s assessment of the Application Costs?
The Court’s assessment was governed by RDC 38.2, which requires the Court to be satisfied that costs were proportionately and reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount. Furthermore, the Court was directed by RDC 38.23 to consider the complexity of the matter and the conduct of the parties. The Court also relied on the amended costs schedule provided by the Claimant on 16 December 2025.
The Claimant’s costs of the Application Parts 1 and 2 were provided in an amended costs schedule dated 16 December 2025, filed with an accompanying note.
How did the Court use the cited RDC rules to balance the competing interests of the parties?
The Court used RDC 38.2 as the primary filter for the assessment. By placing the burden of proof on the Claimant to justify the reasonableness of its costs, the Court effectively mitigated the Defendant’s concerns regarding excessive staffing and document review. The "broadbrush" approach served as the mechanism to reconcile the Claimant's high-cost submission with the Defendant's argument for proportionality, ensuring that the final award of AED 123,500.00 reflected the reality of the work done without rewarding inefficiency.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief awarded by the Court in CFI 053/2024?
The Court dismissed the adjournment application (Part 1) and adjourned the expert evidence application (Part 2) to be heard at the trial. Regarding costs, the Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant for the costs of Application Part 1, assessed at AED 123,500.00.
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant its costs of the Application Part 1, which are immediately assessed on a standard basis in the sum of 123,500.00.
The remaining 50% of the total Application Costs (AED 185,055.10) were reserved for determination at a future stage of the proceedings.
The remaining 50% of the Claimant’s Application Costs at AED 185,055.10 shall be determined at a future stage of these proceedings.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the assessment of costs at pre-trial reviews?
This order serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will actively manage costs at the pre-trial stage, particularly when applications are withdrawn or adjourned. Practitioners should anticipate that the Court will apply a "broadbrush" approach to immediate assessments, which often results in a significant discount from the total costs claimed. To maximize recovery, parties must ensure that their costs schedules are meticulously prepared and that the staffing levels are demonstrably proportionate to the complexity of the application. Furthermore, the Court’s willingness to reserve a portion of costs for later determination signals that practitioners should be prepared for bifurcated costs assessments in complex, multi-part applications.
Where can I read the full judgment in CFI 053/2024 Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC v Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0532024-qatar-general-insurance-reinsurance-company-qspc-v-emrgent-risk-solutions-limited-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-053-2024_20251217.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) 38.2
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 38.23