What was the specific nature of the dispute between Cayan Assets Investments and Lane Investments and Holdings in CFI 082/2024?
The litigation concerns a complex commercial dispute involving Cayan Assets Investments LLC as the Claimant and multiple respondents, including Lane Investments and Holdings INC (the Second Defendant). The immediate controversy before the Court on 29 September 2025 centered on the aftermath of several unsuccessful interlocutory applications filed by Lane. Specifically, Lane had sought to strike out the Claimant’s Part 8 claim, obtain immediate summary judgment, and discharge a stop notice that had been placed on certain assets.
The Claimant successfully defended these positions, leading to the dismissal of all three applications by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke. The core of the current dispute was the quantification and method of recovery for the legal costs incurred by the Claimant in resisting these maneuvers. As noted in the Court’s reasons:
The Claimant succeeded on the Consolidated Applications of the Second Defendant (“Lane”) to strikeout the claims, for immediate summary judgment in its favour and for discharge of the Stop Notice.
The financial stakes were significant, with the Court ultimately ordering the Second Defendant to pay a total of AED 550,000 in costs, covering the consolidated applications, the assessment process itself, and prior case management directions.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in Cayan Assets Investments v Lane Investments and Holdings and in which division of the DIFC Courts?
The matter was heard by H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 29 September 2025, following a hearing held on 2 September 2025 regarding the consolidated applications.
What were the primary arguments advanced by Lane Investments and Holdings regarding the assessment of costs?
Lane Investments and Holdings argued against the Claimant’s request for summary assessment, contending that a detailed assessment was procedurally necessary. Lane’s counsel raised objections regarding the quantum of the costs claimed and attempted to introduce correspondence marked "Without prejudice save as to costs" to influence the Court’s decision. Lane further argued that the Court should consider whether costs should be "in the case" or reserved, rather than awarded immediately to the Claimant.
Conversely, the Claimant argued that it was the successful party in the consolidated applications and was therefore entitled to costs as a matter of principle. The Claimant maintained that Lane had failed to present any admissible "without prejudice" offer that would have equaled or bettered the outcome achieved by the Claimant, thereby rendering Lane's reliance on such correspondence irrelevant to the costs of the specific applications at hand.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the application of RDC 38.36 and the necessity of detailed assessment?
The Court was required to determine whether the circumstances of the case necessitated a formal, time-consuming detailed assessment of costs or whether the Court could exercise its discretion to perform a summary assessment. The doctrinal tension lay in balancing the Second Defendant’s procedural objections—specifically regarding the timing of the filing of the costs schedule under RDC 38.36—against the Court’s inherent power to manage its own proceedings efficiently. The Court had to decide if the complexity of the quantum arguments raised by Lane was sufficient to override the general preference for summary assessment in interlocutory matters.
How did H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke apply the test of proportionality to the request for summary assessment?
Justice Cooke applied a test of proportionality and case management efficiency, concluding that the nature of the applications did not warrant the delay and expense of a detailed assessment. The judge noted that the applications had been disposed of within a single day, making summary assessment the appropriate mechanism to resolve the costs dispute. The Court rejected Lane's procedural complaints regarding the timing of the costs schedule filing, noting that Lane had been afforded ample opportunity to challenge the quantum. As the Court reasoned:
The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 360,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court in respect of the Consolidated Applications.
The judge emphasized that the Claimant’s schedules of costs were prepared in the standard form, which provided sufficient clarity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the work performed without requiring a full-scale inquiry.
Which specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were applied by the Court in determining the costs order?
The Court relied heavily on the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Specifically, the Court referenced RDC 4.16 regarding the strike-out of claims and RDC 24.1 regarding applications for immediate judgment. Regarding the assessment of costs, the Court addressed the requirements of RDC 38.36 and RDC 38.37. The Court also exercised its broad case management powers under RDC 40.13 to ensure the efficient resolution of the costs dispute.
How did the Court distinguish the application of RDC 38.36 and RDC 38.37 in the context of the Second Defendant’s procedural objections?
The Court utilized RDC 38.37 to dismiss Lane’s argument that the Claimant’s costs schedule was filed late. Lane had contended that the schedule was filed 6 to 16 minutes past the deadline stipulated in RDC 38.36. Justice Cooke clarified that the rules provided sufficient flexibility and that Lane had been given 21 days to review the schedule and submit an 8-page response, which it had fully utilized. Consequently, the Court found no procedural prejudice to Lane and proceeded to assess the costs summarily, noting that the schedules provided were consistent with standard practice.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Court?
The Court dismissed the Second Defendant’s applications and ordered Lane to pay the Claimant a total of AED 550,000. This was broken down into three distinct components:
The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 360,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court in respect of the Consolidated Applications.
The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 40,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court in respect of the assessment of costs in paragraph 1 of this Order.
The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 150,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court on the Indemnity basis in respect of the Case Management directions given on 11 February 2025.
How does this ruling change the practice for litigants seeking to challenge costs assessments in the DIFC?
This case reinforces the DIFC Court’s strict stance on proportionality and its preference for summary assessment in interlocutory matters. Practitioners should anticipate that the Court will be increasingly resistant to requests for detailed assessment when the underlying applications take less than a day to hear. The ruling serves as a warning that procedural technicalities, such as minor delays in filing costs schedules, will not be permitted to derail the summary assessment process if the opposing party has had a fair opportunity to contest the quantum. Litigants must ensure that any "without prejudice" offers are clearly articulated and relevant to the specific applications being contested if they intend to rely on them to mitigate costs exposure.
Where can I read the full judgment in Cayan Assets Investments v EFS Facilities Management [2025] DIFC CFI 082?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0822024-cayan-assets-investments-llc-v-1-efs-facilities-management-limited-2-lane-investments-and-holdings-inc-3-tarek-tabar-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-082-2024_20250929.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in the provided text. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 4.16 (Strike out)
- RDC 24.1 (Immediate judgment)
- RDC 38.36 (Filing of costs schedules)
- RDC 38.37 (Procedure for costs assessment)
- RDC 40.13 (Case management powers)