What was the total amount claimed by Wincore Advisory Group DMCC in its costs application against JPV Management Consultancy and Jai Prakash Naraine in CFI 054/2024?
The dispute originated from a claim for outstanding invoices and commission arrears. Following a judgment in its favor, Wincore Advisory Group DMCC sought to recover costs totaling AED 217,374.01. This figure comprised three distinct categories: legal fees of AED 84,000 for the instruction of Marwan Mohamed Advocates, Ammar Almulla Advocates, Horizons and Co Law Firm, and Counsel Sean Yates; disbursements of AED 48,872.88 covering court and application filing fees; and a contingency fee component of AED 84,501.13.
The court noted that while the application was technically unopposed, the absence of detailed time records necessitated a judicial intervention to ensure the final award met the standards of reasonableness and proportionality. As the court observed:
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Judgment, the Claimant filed its submissions on costs under Rule 38.36 of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) dated 1 September 2025.
The full details of the costs application can be reviewed at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in CFI 054/2024 and in which division of the DIFC Courts was the matter heard?
The matter was heard before H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani in the Court of First Instance. The proceedings culminated in an order issued on 24 February 2026, following a trial that took place on 3 and 4 September 2025.
How did the parties approach the costs submissions in CFI 054/2024 given that the Defendants filed no response?
The Claimant, Wincore Advisory Group DMCC, submitted its costs application in accordance with the court’s previous directions. Despite the court’s explicit instruction for both parties to file submissions regarding the quantum of costs, the Defendants, JPV Management Consultancy and Jai Prakash Naraine, remained silent.
Although paragraph 3 of the Judgment directed both parties to file submissions on costs, the Defendant has filed no submissions in response.
Because the Defendants failed to engage with the process, the Claimant’s application was technically unopposed. However, the court emphasized that this lack of opposition did not relieve the judiciary of its duty to independently scrutinize the request. The court maintained that it must verify whether the claimed amount was reasonable and proportionate, regardless of the opposing party's silence.
What was the primary legal question the court had to resolve regarding the assessment of fixed-fee costs in the absence of time records?
The central doctrinal issue was how the court should exercise its discretion under Part 38 of the RDC when a party claims costs on a fixed-fee basis without providing contemporaneous time records. Specifically, the court had to determine how to apply the principle of proportionality when it is impossible to perform a comparative assessment against the guidance provided in the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023. The court had to balance the Claimant’s contractual fee arrangements with the court's overarching mandate to ensure that only reasonable costs are recovered from an unsuccessful party.
How did Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the RDC 38.23 test to determine the final costs award?
The judge focused on the nature and scope of the proceedings, noting that the case was relatively straightforward, involving only two applications and approximately eight hours of total hearing time. Crucially, the judge factored in the Claimant’s "partial success," as the commission arrears claim had been dismissed and the invoice claims were reduced from the original amounts sought.
Having regard to the matters set out above, and applying the considerations in RDC 38.23, I am satisfied that it is fair and proportionate to award the Claimant costs in the sum of AED 135,000.
The judge concluded that the requested amount of AED 217,374.01 was excessive given the limited success and the lack of transparency regarding time spent. By applying RDC 38.23, the court effectively "taxed" the costs down to a level it deemed reflective of the actual work performed and the degree of success achieved.
Which specific RDC rules and procedural guidelines were cited by the court in assessing the recoverability of costs?
The court relied heavily on Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the court referenced RDC 38.36, which governs the filing of costs submissions, and RDC 38.40, which dictates the timeline for payment of awarded costs. The assessment of proportionality was conducted under the framework of RDC 38.23. The court also noted the limitations imposed by the absence of time records, which prevented the application of the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023, a standard tool for comparative assessment in the DIFC.
How did the court utilize the concept of "partial success" in its assessment of the Claimant's costs?
The court utilized the concept of partial success as a primary lever for reducing the total costs award. Because the Claimant failed to secure the full amount claimed—specifically losing on the commission arrears portion—the court determined that the Defendants should not be liable for the entirety of the Claimant’s legal expenditure.
In these circumstances, the Claimant’s recoverable costs should reflect its partial, rather than complete, success.
The court also considered the parties' pre-action conduct, noting that limited efforts were made to narrow the dispute before the commencement of the claim. This lack of pre-trial cooperation, combined with the outcome of the judgment, led the court to conclude that a significant reduction from the claimed AED 217,374.01 to the awarded AED 135,000 was necessary to satisfy the requirements of fairness and proportionality.
What was the final disposition and the specific timeline ordered for the payment of costs in CFI 054/2024?
The court awarded the Claimant costs in the sum of AED 135,000. This amount was significantly lower than the AED 217,374.01 requested.
Pursuant to RDC 38.40, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs in that sum within 14 days of the date of this Order.
The order was issued on 24 February 2026, meaning the Defendants were required to settle the payment by 10 March 2026.
What are the practical implications for practitioners regarding the use of fixed-fee arrangements in DIFC litigation?
This order serves as a warning to practitioners that fixed-fee arrangements do not insulate a party from a rigorous judicial assessment of costs. Even when a costs application is unopposed, the DIFC Court will not rubber-stamp a request if it lacks supporting time records. Practitioners should anticipate that the court will apply its own assessment of proportionality, particularly when the claimant has only achieved partial success. The failure to provide detailed time-based records makes it highly likely that the court will exercise its discretion to reduce the award, as it did here by cutting the claim by over 35%.
Where can I read the full judgment in Wincore Advisory Group DMCC v JPV Management Consultancy [2026] DIFC CFI 054?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0542024-wincore-advisory-group-dmcc-v-1-jpv-management-consultancy-2-jai-prakash-naraine or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-054-2024_20260224.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in the order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- RDC 38.23 (Proportionality and reasonableness of costs)
- RDC 38.36 (Filing of costs submissions)
- RDC 38.40 (Payment of costs)
- Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023 (Guidance on costs assessment)