This order clarifies the DIFC Court’s approach to assessing legal costs when a claimant utilizes counsel but lacks formal solicitor representation, specifically in the context of unsuccessful preliminary dismissal applications.
What was the nature of the dispute between Keshav Global Trading and ETG Commodities Holdings that led to the USD 150,000 costs order?
The litigation, filed under claim number CFI 069/2024, centers on a commercial dispute between the Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, and the Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited. The core of the conflict involved the Defendant’s attempt to secure a summary dismissal of the claim through the determination of preliminary issues.
The litigation reached a critical juncture when the Defendant’s efforts to terminate the proceedings failed. Following the Court’s determination of these preliminary issues, the focus shifted to the recovery of costs associated with several procedural hurdles, including an "Unless Order" application, a second security for costs application, and the Case Management Conference (CMC). The Court ultimately held the Defendant liable for the Claimants' costs incurred during these specific procedural stages.
The Defendants failed in their attempt to have the Claim dismissed on the basis of the determination of those issues.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in Keshav Global Trading v ETG Commodities Holdings and in which division did this occur?
The costs assessment was presided over by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 19 January 2026, following the Court’s earlier substantive orders regarding the preliminary issues and the procedural history of the case.
What were the respective positions of Keshav Global Trading and ETG Commodities Holdings regarding the reasonableness of the claimed costs?
The Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, sought recovery of costs for multiple procedural applications and the CMC. Their position was that as the successful party in the preliminary issues, they were entitled to their costs as a matter of course. They submitted their statement of costs, which the Defendant subsequently challenged.
The Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited, argued against the full recovery of these costs, likely emphasizing the lack of solicitor representation on the part of the Claimants. The Defendant’s submissions, dated 6 January 2026, attempted to persuade the Court to deviate from the provisional views expressed in the earlier Schedule of Reasons dated 16 December 2025. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive, noting that the Defendant’s own expenditure on the matter was significantly higher than the Claimants' claims.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the assessment of costs for a party represented by counsel but not solicitors?
The central legal issue was the application of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) when a party is represented by Counsel but does not engage solicitors. The Court had to determine how to adjust the costs claimed to reflect the division of labor—specifically, the fact that the Defendant had undertaken the bulk of the documentary preparation that would typically fall to a solicitor. The Court was tasked with balancing the Claimants' right to recover costs against the requirement to ensure those costs were proportionate given the absence of a solicitor-led team.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the principle of proportionality to the Claimants' costs in Keshav Global Trading v ETG Commodities Holdings?
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke adopted a pragmatic approach, acknowledging the disparity in the Claimants' legal structure compared to standard commercial litigants. He recognized that while the Claimants engaged Counsel, the absence of solicitors meant the Claimants' costs were not directly comparable to those of the Defendant. Crucially, he noted that the Defendant had performed much of the documentary heavy lifting.
To ensure fairness, the Court applied a percentage discount to the claimed amounts to account for the reduced scope of work performed by the Claimants' legal team.
Whilst the Claimants engaged Counsel for these hearings and did not engage solicitors, with the result that the Claimants’ costs are not therefore directly comparable with those of the Defendant, and the Defendant undertook most of the documentary preparation which would normally have been the Claimants’ responsibility, it does not lie in the mouth of the Defendant to cavil at the costs of the Claimants which are so much less than the amounts expended by the Defendants. I have taken into account both the burden of establishing the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs incurred and the absence of solicitors which affects the work to be done by Counsel for the Claimants and have discounted the sums claimed by the Claimants by approximately 30% (the Preliminary Issue costs), 25% (the Unless Order Application costs) 25% (the Second Security for Costs Application) and 30% (the CMC).
Which specific RDC rules and procedural orders governed the costs award in this case?
The Court’s authority to award these costs was derived from the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The assessment was specifically tied to the procedural history established in earlier orders, notably the order dated 29 September 2025, which stipulated that the costs of the Unless Order Application, the Second Security for Costs Application, and the CMC should be "costs in the Preliminary Issues."
By paragraph 8 of the order dated 29 September 2025, the Court ordered that the costs of the Unless Order Application of 20 June 2025, the Second Security for Costs Application dated 22 August 2025 and the costs of the CMC should be cost in the Preliminary Issues.
How did the Court utilize the Schedule of Reasons from the 16 December 2025 order in its final determination?
The Court used the Schedule of Reasons from the 16 December 2025 order as the baseline for its final assessment. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke explicitly stated that the Defendant’s subsequent submissions failed to provide any basis for departing from the provisional views previously expressed.
There is nothing in the submissions of the Defendant which changes the provisional views expressed in the Schedule of Reasons to the Order dated 16 December 2025.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief ordered by the Court in Keshav Global Trading v ETG Commodities Holdings?
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimants a total of USD 150,000 in costs. This figure was broken down into specific amounts for the various procedural stages: USD 80,000 for the Preliminary Issues, USD 20,000 for the Unless Order Application, USD 15,000 for the Second Security for Costs Application, and USD 35,000 for the CMC. The Defendant was ordered to make this payment within 21 days of the order date.
The assessed costs of USD 150,000 referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order shall be paid by the Defendant to the Claimants within 21 days of the date of this Order.
What are the practical implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the recovery of costs when a party is represented by Counsel but not solicitors?
This case serves as a vital reminder that the DIFC Court will rigorously apply the principles of proportionality when assessing costs. Practitioners should note that while the Court will not penalize a party for choosing to engage Counsel without solicitors, it will adjust the recoverable costs to reflect the actual work performed. Litigants must be prepared to demonstrate the reasonableness of their costs, especially when the division of labor deviates from the standard solicitor-counsel model. The Court’s willingness to apply significant discounts (25-30%) highlights that "proportionality" is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical tool used to calibrate awards based on the specific procedural burden carried by each party.
Where can I read the full judgment in Keshav Global Trading v ETG Commodities Holdings [2026] DIFC CFI 069?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0692024-1-keshav-global-trading-llc-2-keshav-global-private-limited-v-etg-commodities-holdings-limited-3
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)