What was the specific quantum of the costs dispute between Coinmena B.S.C. and Foloosi Technologies in CFI 067/2025?
The dispute centers on the assessment of legal costs incurred by the Claimant, Coinmena B.S.C., following the unsuccessful attempt by the Defendant, Foloosi Technologies, to appeal an earlier order. After the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal (PTA) the January 2026 order, the Claimant submitted a detailed Statement of Costs to recover its legal expenditure.
The Claimant sought a total of USD 29,587.71, which covered professional fees, disbursements, and Counsel’s fees associated with the PTA proceedings. This assessment follows a series of procedural skirmishes in the same case family, including the COINMENA B.S.C. v FOLOOSI TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 067 — Costs assessment following failed strike-out application (06 February 2026) and the COINMENA B.S.C. v FOLOOSI TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 067 — Dismissal of permission to appeal immediate judgment refusal (10 April 2026). As noted in the court's schedule of reasons:
The Claimant filed a Statement of Costs dated 15 April 2026, claiming a total sum of USD 29,587.71, comprising professional fees and disbursements, including Counsel’s fees.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in the CFI 067/2025 PTA application?
The assessment was conducted by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 20 April 2026, following the dismissal of the Defendant's PTA application on 10 April 2026.
What were the procedural requirements imposed on Foloosi Technologies regarding the payment of costs to Coinmena B.S.C.?
Following the court's determination that the Claimant was entitled to recover costs on the standard basis, the Defendant was directed to settle the amount within a strict timeframe. The court mandated that the payment be made within 14 days of the order date. Failure to comply with this timeline triggers an interest penalty, ensuring that the successful party is not further prejudiced by delays in recovery. As stated in the order:
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order, the Defendant was directed to pay the Claimant’s costs of the PTA Application on the standard basis, with a Statement of Costs to be filed within five working days.
What was the core legal question regarding the proportionality of the costs claimed by Coinmena B.S.C.?
The primary legal issue before H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi was whether the full amount of USD 29,587.71 claimed by the Claimant was "reasonable and proportionate" under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). While the Claimant was the successful party, the court had to determine if the entirety of the professional fees and disbursements submitted in the Statement of Costs should be borne by the Defendant, or if the court’s discretionary power should be exercised to reduce the award to reflect the nature of the PTA application.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the principle of proportionality to the costs award?
In exercising his discretion, Justice Al Sawalehi acknowledged the Claimant's success in the PTA application but determined that a reduction was necessary to satisfy the requirements of proportionality. By applying this test, the court reduced the recoverable amount to 80% of the total claimed, effectively balancing the right of the successful party to be indemnified against the court's duty to ensure that costs remain reasonable. The reasoning provided by the court was:
While the Claimant was the successful party in the PTA Application, I consider it appropriate, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, to allow recovery of 80% of the total costs claimed, reflecting the nature of the PTA Application and the need to ensure proportionality.
Which specific RDC rules and practice directions governed the court's assessment of costs in this matter?
The court relied on Part 38 of the RDC, which governs the assessment of costs in the DIFC Courts. Specifically, the judge referenced RDC 38.7, 38.8, and 38.23, which collectively mandate that costs allowed on the standard basis must be both reasonable and proportionate. Additionally, the court cited RDC 38.40 regarding the timing of payments. Regarding the interest applicable to late payments, the court invoked Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017. The court's reliance on these provisions is summarized as follows:
In assessing those costs, the Court has had regard to RDC 38.7, 38.8 and 38.23, and to the requirement that costs allowed on the standard basis be both reasonable and proportionate.
How did the court utilize RDC 38.40 and Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 in the final order?
The court utilized RDC 38.40 to set the 14-day deadline for the Defendant to satisfy the Costs Award. Furthermore, the court utilized Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 to establish a clear deterrent against non-payment. By specifying that interest would accrue at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment in full, the court ensured the enforceability of the award. As the order states:
The Defendant shall pay the Costs Award within 14 days of the date of this Order, pursuant to RDC 38.40.
What was the final monetary disposition and the specific order for relief granted to Coinmena B.S.C.?
The court ordered the Defendant to pay a total of USD 23,670.17. This figure represents the 80% portion of the original claim deemed reasonable and proportionate by the court. The order explicitly mandates this payment to be made within the 14-day window. The finality of this sum is confirmed in the order:
The Defendant shall therefore pay the Claimant the sum of USD 23,670.17 , as set out in the Order above.
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the filing of Statements of Costs?
This order serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will rigorously apply the proportionality test to Statements of Costs, even when a party is successful in an application. Practitioners should anticipate that the court will not automatically grant the full amount claimed if it deems the costs disproportionate to the nature of the application. Furthermore, the inclusion of a 9% interest rate for late payment underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that cost awards are settled promptly without the need for further enforcement proceedings.
Where can I read the full judgment in COINMENA B.S.C. v FOLOOSI TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 067?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0672025-coinmena-bsc-v-foloosi-technologies-ltd or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/cfi-0672025-coinmena-bsc-v-foloosi-technologies-ltd.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Coinmena B.S.C. v Foloosi Technologies Ltd | [2026] DIFC CFI 067 | Primary matter |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Part 38, RDC 4.16, RDC 38.7, RDC 38.8, RDC 38.23, RDC 38.40
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments)