This order clarifies the Court’s application of proportionality tests when assessing costs on a standard basis, specifically addressing the quantum of legal fees claimed for responding to an application for permission to appeal.
What was the specific dispute regarding the quantum of costs in CFI 057/2021 between Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri and Mr John Cameron?
The dispute centered on the assessment of recoverable costs following an application for permission to appeal filed by the Claimant, Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri. After the Court previously ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs on a standard basis, the parties reached an impasse regarding the reasonableness and proportionality of the fees submitted by the Defendant, Mr John Cameron. The Claimant challenged the Defendant’s Statement of Costs dated 9 September 2025, arguing that the amount requested was excessive given the limited scope of the work performed.
The Court was tasked with reconciling the Defendant’s claim for legal fees against the actual effort required to respond to the permission to appeal application. The Claimant contended that because the Defendant’s legal team was already deeply familiar with the underlying merits of the case, the time spent and costs incurred in drafting the response were inflated. The Court ultimately agreed with this assessment, noting:
There is force in the Claimant's submission that the Defendant's costs are disproportionate to the nature of the task, viz the task of responding to the Claimant's permission to appeal application when the Defendant's legal team were fully conversant with the case.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in the DIFC Court of First Instance on 7 October 2025?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie, sitting in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued following a review of the parties' written submissions, which were filed throughout September 2025 in accordance with the Court’s earlier directions. The final order was formally issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo on 7 October 2025.
How did the parties frame their respective positions on the proportionality of costs in CFI 057/2021?
The Defendant sought recovery of costs based on the work performed in opposing the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal. The Defendant’s position, reflected in the Statement of Costs, was that the fees were a necessary expenditure to defend the position of the Respondent. Conversely, the Claimant argued that the costs were disproportionate to the nature of the task. The Claimant’s legal team emphasized that the Defendant’s counsel was already "fully conversant" with the case, meaning that the research and drafting required for the permission to appeal application should have been significantly less burdensome than the Defendant’s bill suggested.
The Court acknowledged the procedural history, noting the sequence of filings that led to this determination:
I have read the parties' submissions on the question of costs submitted in accordance with paragraph 3 of my Order.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie had to resolve regarding the assessment of costs?
The Court had to determine the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded on a standard basis, specifically addressing whether the Defendant’s claimed fees met the threshold of proportionality required by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The core issue was not merely whether the work was performed, but whether the amount claimed was reasonable and proportionate to the task of responding to a single procedural application—the permission to appeal—when the legal team already possessed comprehensive knowledge of the case history.
How did H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie apply the proportionality test under RDC 38.21?
In his reasoning, Justice Lord Angus Glennie emphasized that an award of costs on a standard basis is not an automatic entitlement to the full amount claimed. He applied a two-fold analysis: first, he considered the factors listed in RDC 38.23, which govern the assessment of costs on a standard basis; second, he applied the mandatory proportionality check required by RDC 38.21.
The Judge concluded that the Defendant’s claim failed the proportionality test because the legal team’s existing familiarity with the case should have resulted in a more efficient and less costly response. The Court’s reasoning process was as follows:
My Order, properly interpreted, was that the Claimant should pay costs assessed on the standard basis. Rule 38.23 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) lists a number of factors to which the Court must have regard in making that assessment. I have done so, but RDC 38.21 requires the Court also to have regard to whether the costs claimed are proportionate and reasonable in amount. I have had regard to this too.
Which specific RDC rules were applied to the assessment of costs in this case?
The Court relied primarily on RDC 38.21 and RDC 38.23. RDC 38.23 provides the framework for assessing costs on a standard basis, requiring the Court to consider various factors to ensure the amount is fair. RDC 38.21 acts as a critical overlay, mandating that the Court must consider whether the costs claimed are "proportionate and reasonable in amount." By invoking these rules, the Court underscored that even if legal work is performed, the cost must be commensurate with the complexity and nature of the specific procedural step being addressed.
How did the Court exercise its discretion in determining the final quantum of costs?
The Court exercised its discretion by rejecting the Defendant’s full claim, finding it unreasonable. Justice Lord Angus Glennie opted to perform a summary assessment rather than ordering a detailed assessment, aiming to bring finality to the costs dispute. The Court’s decision to reduce the award was based on the principle that costs should not exceed what is necessary for the task at hand.
The Court’s rationale for the reduction was clear:
I do not consider it reasonable to award the full amount of the costs claimed. Doing the best I can, I consider that the sum of USD 26,000 is the appropriate figure.
What was the final outcome and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Court?
The Court ordered the Claimant, Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri, to pay the Defendant, Mr John Cameron, the sum of USD 26,000 in respect of the recoverable costs for the application. This amount was determined by the Court as the appropriate figure after assessing the proportionality of the Defendant’s original claim. The order was final, resolving the outstanding costs dispute arising from the permission to appeal application.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC practitioners regarding costs assessments?
This decision serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will rigorously apply the proportionality test under RDC 38.21, regardless of whether costs are awarded on a standard or indemnity basis. Practitioners must be prepared to justify the quantum of their costs by demonstrating that the time spent is commensurate with the task, particularly when the legal team is already well-versed in the case. The ruling discourages "over-lawyering" procedural applications and reinforces the Court’s willingness to intervene and reduce claims that do not align with the nature of the work performed.
Where can I read the full judgment in Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri v Mr John Cameron [2025] DIFC CFI 057?
The full order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0572021-khaled-salem-musabeh-humaid-al-mheiri-v-mr-john-cameron-2
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in the text of the order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 38.21
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) 38.23