The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural finality of cost assessments where a respondent fails to engage with the court’s post-judgment cost-submission process.
What was the specific quantum of costs sought by Aptiva Technologies FZE in CFI 076/2024 following the substantive judgment?
The dispute between Aptiva Technologies FZE and Liberty Steel Group Holdings (Emea) Ltd culminated in a final assessment of legal costs following the substantive judgment delivered by the Court on 2 February 2026. Having succeeded in the underlying claim, Aptiva Technologies FZE moved the Court to quantify the recoverable costs of the action. The specific amount requested by the Claimant was USD 45,000.
The Court’s determination was straightforward, given the lack of opposition from the Defendant. In the schedule of reasons accompanying the order, the Court noted:
As set out in the Judgment, the Claimant sought USD 45,000 as its costs of the action.
This figure represented the entirety of the Claimant’s application for costs, which the Court ultimately accepted in full. The details of this assessment are available at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the assessment of costs in Aptiva Technologies FZE v Liberty Steel Group Holdings (Emea) Ltd?
The assessment of costs was presided over by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 26 February 2026, following the substantive judgment previously delivered by the same judge on 2 February 2026. The proceedings were managed under the Court of First Instance division, ensuring consistency between the merits phase and the subsequent enforcement of cost orders.
How did Liberty Steel Group Holdings (Emea) Ltd respond to the application for USD 45,000 in costs?
Liberty Steel Group Holdings (Emea) Ltd adopted a position of total non-engagement regarding the Claimant’s application for costs. Despite being afforded the procedural opportunity to contest the reasonableness or proportionality of the USD 45,000 claim, the Defendant failed to file any submissions or evidence to challenge the Claimant’s position.
The Court explicitly highlighted this lack of participation in its reasoning. The judge observed:
The Defendant has not filed any submissions in respect of this claim although it has had the opportunity to do so.
By failing to provide a counter-argument or a breakdown of why the costs might be considered excessive, the Defendant effectively waived its right to influence the Court’s assessment of the quantum, leaving the Court to rely solely on the Claimant’s representations.
What was the primary legal question before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart regarding the assessment of costs?
The core legal question before the Court was whether the sum of USD 45,000, as claimed by Aptiva Technologies FZE, satisfied the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality under the DIFC Rules of Court (RDC). The Court was tasked with determining if the costs incurred by the Claimant during the litigation were appropriate in the context of the proceedings, particularly in the absence of any adversarial challenge from the Defendant.
The Court had to decide whether it was satisfied that the claimed amount was a fair reflection of the work performed and the complexity of the matter, or whether the Court was required to exercise its own discretion to adjust the figure downward despite the lack of opposition. The issue was not merely the existence of a debt, but the judicial validation of the cost quantum as being consistent with the overriding objective of the DIFC Courts.
How did H.E. Justice Roger Stewart apply the test of reasonableness and proportionality to the costs claim?
In assessing the costs, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart applied the standard test of reasonableness and proportionality. Given that the Defendant provided no evidence to the contrary, the Court reviewed the Claimant’s application and concluded that the requested sum was justified. The judge’s reasoning focused on the alignment between the work undertaken and the final figure requested.
The Court’s assessment was concise, confirming that the Claimant’s request met the necessary threshold for recovery. The judge stated:
I consider the costs to be reasonable and proportionate, and I therefore assess the costs in the sum claimed.
This reasoning underscores that where a party fails to challenge a reasonable cost application, the Court will typically grant the full amount, provided it does not appear manifestly excessive on its face.
Which specific DIFC procedural rules govern the assessment of costs in the Court of First Instance?
The assessment of costs in this matter is governed by the DIFC Rules of Court (RDC), specifically those provisions relating to the Court’s power to award and assess costs. While the order does not explicitly cite specific RDC numbers, the Court’s authority to assess costs is derived from the general powers of the Court of First Instance to manage litigation and ensure that the successful party is compensated for the expenses of the action.
The Court’s approach is consistent with the principles of cost recovery where the Court has the discretion to determine the amount of costs to be paid by one party to another. The assessment process is intended to be a summary procedure, particularly when the amount is not in dispute, allowing the Court to reach a final determination without the need for a full, detailed assessment hearing.
How does the court treat precedents regarding the proportionality of legal costs in the absence of submissions?
In this case, the Court relied on the principle that the burden of challenging a cost application rests with the party against whom the costs are sought. By failing to file submissions, the Defendant effectively conceded the proportionality of the costs. The Court’s reliance on the "reasonableness and proportionality" test is a standard application of the DIFC Courts’ inherent jurisdiction to manage costs, ensuring that the successful party is not unfairly burdened by the costs of litigation.
The Court’s decision reflects a broader practice in the DIFC where the Court will not proactively reduce costs that appear reasonable on their face if the opposing party has not raised a specific objection. This reinforces the importance of active participation by defendants in the costs-assessment phase, as silence is interpreted by the Court as an acceptance of the Claimant’s valuation of their legal expenses.
What was the final disposition of the Court regarding the payment of the USD 45,000?
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the full sum of USD 45,000 to the Claimant. The order was structured to ensure immediate compliance, emphasizing that the obligation to pay was not contingent upon further procedural steps. The Court’s order explicitly stated:
To the extent not already paid, the costs are payable by the Defendant to the Claimant forthwith.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated the obligation in its schedule of reasons, noting:
To the extent that they have not already been paid, the Defendant should pay such costs.
This final disposition serves as an enforceable judgment, allowing the Claimant to pursue enforcement measures under the DIFC Rules if the Defendant fails to settle the amount immediately.
What are the practical implications for litigants regarding cost submissions in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that the DIFC Court will not perform an independent, exhaustive audit of costs if the responding party remains silent. Litigants who fail to file submissions regarding costs risk having the entirety of the Claimant’s claim assessed against them, even if those costs might have been subject to reduction had they been challenged.
For future litigants, the takeaway is clear: the assessment phase is a critical stage of the litigation process. Failure to engage with the Court’s invitation to provide submissions on costs is treated as a waiver of the right to contest the quantum. Practitioners must ensure that they either reach an agreement on costs or provide robust, evidence-based submissions to the Court to avoid the risk of a full-amount assessment against their clients.
Where can I read the full judgment in Aptiva Technologies FZE v Liberty Steel Group Holdings (Emea) Ltd [2026] DIFC CFI 076?
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-0762024-aptiva-technologies-fze-v-liberty-steel-group-holdings-emea-ltd-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-076-2024_20260226.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external authorities cited in this specific costs order. |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Rules of Court (RDC) - General provisions regarding costs assessment.