This consent order formalizes the final resolution of costs between Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company following the substantive proceedings in CFI 059/2022.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding costs between Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company in CFI 059/2022?
The litigation in CFI 059/2022 concerned a dispute between Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company, which culminated in a final determination regarding the liability for legal costs. Following an earlier order issued by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 22 November 2022, the parties entered into negotiations to quantify the recoverable costs of the proceedings. These negotiations resulted in a mutual agreement on the quantum, avoiding the need for a formal detailed assessment process before the Registrar.
The resolution of this dispute was memorialized in a consent order, which mandated the payment of a specific sum to the Claimant. The final figure agreed upon by the parties reflects the total costs incurred by Bilt Middle East during the course of the litigation. As noted in the formal order:
The Defendant is ordered to immediately pay the Claimant the Claimant’s costs of these proceedings agreed at AED 79,442.78.
This amount represents the final financial obligation of the Defendant to the Claimant in relation to the legal expenses of the action.
Which judge presided over the consent order proceedings in CFI 059/2022?
The consent order was issued under the authority of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The matter was overseen by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, who had previously issued an order in the same proceedings on 22 November 2022. The final consent order, which quantified the costs at AED 79,442.78, was issued on 2 January 2023 by the Assistant Registrar, Delvin Sumo, acting on the basis of the agreement reached by the parties following the Justice’s earlier directions.
What were the respective positions of Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company regarding the settlement of costs?
The parties adopted a cooperative stance following the initial order of 22 November 2022. Rather than proceeding to a contested costs hearing, which would have required the submission of detailed bills of costs and potential judicial scrutiny under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company engaged in direct negotiations.
The Claimant, Bilt Middle East, sought recovery of its legal costs as the prevailing party, while the Defendant, Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company, acknowledged its liability to satisfy these costs. By reaching a consensus on the figure of AED 79,442.78, both parties effectively waived their right to a formal assessment, opting instead for a consent order to ensure the finality and enforceability of the payment obligation. This approach reflects a standard practice in the DIFC Courts where parties are encouraged to resolve ancillary disputes, such as costs, through private agreement.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to address in the context of the 2 January 2023 consent order?
The Court was not required to adjudicate a contested legal point regarding the entitlement to costs, as the parties had already reached a settlement. Instead, the legal question before the Court was whether the agreement reached between Bilt Middle East and Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company met the formal requirements for a consent order under the RDC.
The Court’s role was to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to convert the private settlement into a binding judicial order. This ensures that the agreement is enforceable as a judgment of the Court, providing the Claimant with a clear mechanism for execution should the Defendant fail to make the payment. The Court had to verify that the terms were clear, that the parties were in agreement, and that the order accurately reflected the resolution of the costs issue arising from the substantive proceedings.
How did the DIFC Court exercise its discretion to formalize the costs agreement in CFI 059/2022?
The Court exercised its discretion by adopting the terms agreed upon by the parties, thereby streamlining the conclusion of the litigation. By issuing a consent order, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke and the Registry ensured that the costs dispute was resolved without further consumption of judicial time. The reasoning process was straightforward: the Court acknowledged the prior order of 22 November 2022 and the subsequent agreement between the parties as the basis for the final disposition.
The Court’s function in this instance was to provide the necessary judicial imprimatur to the settlement. By incorporating the agreed sum into a formal order, the Court provided the Claimant with the necessary legal instrument to enforce the debt. The order explicitly states:
The Defendant is ordered to immediately pay the Claimant the Claimant’s costs of these proceedings agreed at AED 79,442.78.
This directive serves as the final judicial act in the proceedings, effectively closing the file on the costs aspect of the case.
Which specific Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the process of reaching a consent order for costs?
While the order itself does not explicitly cite the RDC, the process of obtaining a consent order in the DIFC Courts is governed by Part 38 of the RDC, which deals with costs, and Part 40, which governs the entry of judgments and orders. Specifically, RDC 40.1 provides the framework for the Court to grant orders by consent where parties have reached an agreement.
The Court’s authority to award costs is derived from Article 30 of the DIFC Court Law (Dubai Law No. 10 of 2004), which grants the Court broad discretion to determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid. In this case, the parties utilized the Court’s procedural mechanisms to avoid the detailed assessment process outlined in RDC 38.38, which would otherwise have been the default path for determining the quantum of costs.
How does the precedent of previous DIFC costs orders inform the Court’s approach to consent settlements?
The DIFC Court consistently encourages parties to resolve costs issues through negotiation, as evidenced by the high volume of consent orders issued in the Court of First Instance. The approach taken in CFI 059/2022 aligns with the Court’s general policy of promoting alternative dispute resolution and party autonomy.
By formalizing the agreement of AED 79,442.78, the Court reinforces the principle that parties are best positioned to assess the reasonableness of their own legal expenditures. This reduces the burden on the Court’s Costs Officers and ensures that the litigation cycle concludes efficiently. The Court’s reliance on the parties' agreement in this case mirrors the standard practice seen in numerous other DIFC commercial disputes where costs are settled post-judgment or post-settlement.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted to Bilt Middle East?
The final disposition of the matter was an order by consent. The Court granted the Claimant, Bilt Middle East, the full amount of the agreed costs. The specific relief granted was a monetary award of AED 79,442.78, payable immediately by the Defendant, Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company. No further costs or interest were specified in the order, indicating that the agreed sum represented a comprehensive settlement of all costs-related claims arising from the proceedings.
What are the practical implications for litigants regarding the enforcement of agreed costs in the DIFC?
Litigants should note that a consent order for costs is a powerful tool for finality. By securing a court order for an agreed sum, the prevailing party avoids the uncertainty and expense of a detailed assessment process. Practically, this means that if the Defendant fails to pay the AED 79,442.78, the Claimant can proceed directly to enforcement measures, such as the attachment of assets or other execution procedures available under the RDC, without needing to prove the underlying entitlement to costs again.
Practitioners should ensure that any settlement agreement regarding costs is clearly drafted and submitted to the Court for formal entry as a consent order. This transforms a private contract into a public record of the Court, significantly enhancing the ease of recovery.
Where can I read the full judgment in Bilt Middle East v Al Ghandi Consolidated Contractors International Company [2023] DIFC CFI 059?
The full text of the consent order is available on the official DIFC Courts website:
https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-059-2022-bilt-middle-east-llc-v-al-ghandi-consolidated-contractors-international-company-llc-1
A digital copy can also be accessed via the CDN link:
https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-059-2022_20230102.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Court Law (Dubai Law No. 10 of 2004), Article 30
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 40