This order addresses the procedural management of costs recovery in the DIFC, specifically clarifying the Court’s willingness to grant extensions for detailed assessment when a party seeks to prioritize the enforcement of an existing interim costs order.
What was the specific procedural dispute between NS Investments and Ajay Sethi regarding the commencement of detailed costs assessment?
The litigation between NS Investments Limited and Ajay Sethi reached a stage where the recovery of legal costs became the primary point of contention. Following a judgment in 2023, the Court issued an order in early 2025 requiring the Claimant to pay 50% of the Defendant’s legal costs. The dispute escalated when the Claimant failed to satisfy this obligation, leading to a subsequent order in January 2026 that mandated the Defendant to commence detailed costs assessment proceedings within a tight five-day window.
The Defendant, Ajay Sethi, sought to delay this assessment process to focus on enforcing the outstanding interim payment. As noted in the Court’s record:
On 7 February 2025, the Order with Reasons requiring the Claimant to pay 50% of the Defendant’s costs by 14 February 2025 was issued (the “Costs Order”), granting the Defendant interim recovery of costs incurred in defending the Claim.
The Defendant’s strategy was to secure the interim funds before committing further resources to the detailed assessment process, while also citing seasonal logistical constraints. The resulting application for an eight-week extension became the focal point of this specific order.
Which judge presided over the application for an extension of time in CFI 055/2020?
H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani presided over the application in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 4 March 2026, following the Defendant’s formal application filed on 28 January 2026.
What were the specific arguments advanced by Ajay Sethi to justify an eight-week extension for costs assessment?
The Defendant, represented by the Seventh Witness Statement of Salah Mattoo (SM7), argued that an extension was necessary for three primary reasons. First, the Defendant sought to prioritize the enforcement of the unpaid 50% interim costs order, which remained unsatisfied by the Claimant. Second, the Defendant aimed to promote procedural efficiency by coordinating the detailed assessment with any potential assessment proceedings initiated by the Claimant. Finally, the Defendant cited practical delays associated with the Ramadan and Eid period.
The Court summarized the Defendant’s position as follows:
By way of summary of SM7, the basis of this Application is that the Defendant wishes to first enforce the unpaid 50% interim costs awarded, as well as to promote procedural efficiency through coordination with any assessment proceedings by the Claimant and to account for practical delays arising from the Ramadan and Eid period.
The Defendant maintained that it was standard practice for a successful party to enforce an interim costs order prior to incurring the additional expense and effort required for a full detailed assessment.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani had to answer regarding the Defendant's request for an extension?
The Court was tasked with determining whether, under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), it was appropriate to grant an eight-week extension to a party that had been previously ordered to commence detailed costs assessment within five working days. The jurisdictional and procedural issue was whether the Defendant’s stated reasons—specifically the desire to enforce an existing interim order and the impact of seasonal holidays—constituted sufficient grounds to override the previous timeline set by the Court on 21 January 2026.
The Court had to balance the need for procedural finality against the practical realities of enforcement and the fact that the Claimant had not contested the application. The legal question was not whether the costs were due, but whether the court-mandated timeline for the assessment process could be modified to accommodate the Defendant’s enforcement strategy.
How did the Court apply the test for uncontested applications to the Defendant’s request for an extension?
The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the fact that the Claimant failed to file evidence in opposition to the Defendant’s request within the timeframe prescribed by the RDC. Because the Claimant did not respond to the application, the Court treated the request as uncontested, which significantly lowered the threshold for approval.
H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani applied a test of reasonableness, assessing whether the requested duration was excessive in light of the circumstances. The Court’s reasoning is captured in the following passage:
As the Application goes uncontested, and considering that the extension sought is not excessive, I see no reason not to grant the Application.
By confirming that the time for filing evidence had lapsed under Rule 23.41(2) of the RDC, the Court established that the Defendant’s justification—procedural efficiency and seasonal delays—was sufficient to warrant the court’s discretion in granting the extension.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) were applied in the determination of this application?
The Court relied heavily on RDC Rule 23.41(2) to establish that the application had become uncontested. This rule governs the timeline for filing evidence in answer to an application. By failing to meet this deadline, the Claimant effectively waived its right to object to the extension. Additionally, the Court exercised its general case management powers under the RDC to regulate the timeline for detailed costs assessment, ensuring that the procedural steps remained aligned with the practical realities of the parties’ enforcement efforts.
How did the Court interpret the procedural history regarding the previous order of 21 January 2026?
The Court acknowledged the previous order of 21 January 2026, which had rejected the Claimant’s attempt to stay the Costs Order and mandated the commencement of assessment within five working days. The Court viewed the current application as a necessary procedural adjustment rather than a contradiction of its earlier stance. It recognized that the Defendant’s request was consistent with the "ordinary practice that a successful party may enforce an interim costs order before incurring further expense in detailed assessment." By granting the extension, the Court effectively prioritized the enforcement of the existing debt over the immediate commencement of the assessment process, provided the delay was not excessive.
What was the final disposition of the application and the order regarding legal costs?
The Court granted the Defendant’s application in full, allowing an eight-week extension to commence detailed costs assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the Court awarded the costs of the application to the Defendant, to be assessed on the standard basis. The order specified that these costs should be assessed by the Court by way of submissions if the parties could not reach an agreement.
The Court’s order regarding the costs of the application was as follows:
Costs of the Application are awarded to the Defendant on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Court by way of submission if not agreed.
This decision ensures that the Defendant is not penalized for having to bring a formal application to secure an extension that the Claimant refused to consent to voluntarily.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the enforcement of interim costs orders?
This case reinforces the principle that the DIFC Courts prioritize procedural efficiency and the practical enforcement of existing orders. Practitioners should note that the Court is willing to grant extensions for detailed assessment if the applicant can demonstrate a logical reason for the delay, such as the desire to enforce an interim order first or to account for seasonal logistical challenges.
Crucially, the case highlights the importance of timely engagement with procedural applications. Because the Claimant failed to contest the application, the Court was able to grant the extension without a substantive hearing on the merits of the delay. Practitioners should anticipate that if they do not formally contest an application for an extension of time, the Court is highly likely to grant it, provided the requested period is not deemed excessive.
Where can I read the full judgment in NS Investments Limited v Ajay Sethi [2026] DIFC CFI 055?
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-0552020-ns-investments-limited-v-ajay-sethi-7
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| NS Investments Limited v Ajay Sethi | CFI 055/2020 | Primary matter |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically Rule 23.41(2)