What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the costs of the failed strike-out application in Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies?
The dispute centered on the quantum of legal costs recoverable by Foloosi Technologies Ltd (the Respondent) following their successful defense against an application for immediate judgment and/or strike-out filed by Coinmena B.S.C. (the Applicant). The underlying application, which sought to dispose of the claim summarily, was dismissed by the Court on 26 January 2026. Following that dismissal, the Respondent submitted a Statement of Costs totaling USD 194,849.38, representing the professional fees and disbursements incurred in successfully opposing the Applicant's motion.
The Court was tasked with assessing these costs on the standard basis. The Applicant was ultimately ordered to pay a reduced sum, reflecting the Court's assessment of what was reasonable and proportionate under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). As noted in the Court's schedule of reasons:
The Respondent duly filed a Statement of Costs dated 2 February 2026, claiming a total sum of USD 194,849.38, comprising professional fees and disbursements incurred in opposing the Application.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in CFI 067/2025 and in which division of the DIFC Courts?
The costs assessment was presided over by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order, issued on 6 February 2026, followed the substantive dismissal of the Applicant's motion on 26 January 2026.
What were the procedural positions of Coinmena B.S.C. and Foloosi Technologies regarding the assessment of costs?
The procedural posture was defined by the Respondent’s successful resistance to the Applicant’s attempt to strike out the claim or obtain immediate judgment. Having been directed by the Court on 26 January 2026 to pay the Respondent's costs, the Applicant faced a claim for USD 194,849.38. The Respondent argued that these costs were necessary and reasonable given the complexity of the application and the work required to defend against the summary disposal of the proceedings.
The Court’s role was to reconcile the Respondent's claim with the overarching principles of the RDC. As the Court noted:
By that Order, the Applicant was directed to pay the Respondent’s costs of the Application on the standard basis, with a Statement of Costs to be filed within five working days.
What was the precise legal question regarding the exercise of judicial discretion under RDC 38 in Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies?
The Court had to determine the extent to which a successful party is entitled to full recovery of costs when those costs are challenged on the grounds of proportionality. The doctrinal issue was whether the Court, when assessing costs on the standard basis, is bound by the total sum claimed in a Statement of Costs, or whether it possesses the inherent discretion to apply a percentage reduction to ensure the final award remains proportionate to the nature of the application and the issues involved.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the doctrine of proportionality to the costs claimed by Foloosi Technologies?
Justice Al Sawalehi exercised the Court's discretion to depart from the full amount claimed by the Respondent. While acknowledging that the Respondent was the successful party in the underlying application, the Court determined that a full recovery of USD 194,849.38 was not appropriate. Instead, the Court applied a 20% reduction, awarding 80% of the total claimed. This decision was grounded in the requirement that costs must be both reasonable and proportionate.
The reasoning emphasized that the nature of the application—a strike-out and immediate judgment motion—did not justify the full quantum of fees submitted. As stated in the Court's reasoning:
Although the Respondent was successful in resisting the Application, I consider it appropriate, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, to limit recovery to 80% of the total costs claimed, reflecting proportionality and the nature of the Application.
Which specific RDC rules and Practice Directions did the Court rely upon to assess the costs in CFI 067/2025?
In determining the final award, the Court relied upon RDC Part 38, which governs the assessment of costs in the DIFC. Specifically, the Court cited RDC 38.7, 38.8, and 38.23, which collectively mandate that costs allowed on the standard basis must be reasonable and proportionate. Furthermore, the Court invoked RDC 38.40 regarding the timeline for payment and Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 to establish the interest rate applicable to the judgment debt in the event of non-payment.
How did the Court utilize the standard basis of assessment in the context of the Respondent's Statement of Costs?
The Court used the standard basis as the primary framework for its assessment, which requires that only costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue are allowed. Any doubt as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount is resolved in favor of the paying party. By applying this test, the Court effectively signaled that the Respondent’s professional fees, while likely incurred in good faith, exceeded the threshold of what was strictly necessary for the specific application, thereby justifying the reduction to 80% of the total.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Court?
The Court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent the sum of USD 155,879.50. This amount was to be paid within 14 days of the order. The Court also included a provision for interest to ensure compliance, stipulating that if the payment was not made within the prescribed period, interest would accrue at a rate of 9% per annum.
The Applicant shall pay the Respondent 80% of the Respondent’s costs of the Application, assessed on the standard basis, in the total sum of USD 155,879.50 (the “Costs Award”).
The Applicant shall pay the Costs Award within 14 days of the date of this Order, pursuant to RDC 38.40.
In the event that the Applicant fails to pay the Costs Award within 14 days of the date of this Order, interest shall accrue at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this Order until payment in full, in accordance with Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding cost recovery after Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies?
This case serves as a reminder that success in an application does not guarantee the recovery of 100% of legal costs. Practitioners must ensure that their Statements of Costs are meticulously prepared and that the fees incurred are demonstrably proportionate to the complexity of the specific application. The Court’s willingness to apply a percentage reduction, even when a party is entirely successful, underscores the judiciary's commitment to controlling the costs of litigation within the DIFC. Litigants should anticipate that the Court will scrutinize the "nature of the application" when determining the final award, and that excessive billing—even if technically accurate—may be curtailed by the exercise of judicial discretion.
Where can I read the full judgment in Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies [2026] DIFC CFI 067?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0672025-coinmena-bsc-c-v-foloosi-technologies-ltd
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 4.16
- RDC Part 38
- RDC 38.7
- RDC 38.8
- RDC 38.23
- RDC 38.40
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017