The Registrar of the DIFC Courts issued a Default Costs Certificate, mandating the payment of USD 113,706 in legal costs due to the Claimant’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedural timelines for challenging a bill of costs.
What was the specific financial stake in the dispute between Salem Dwela and Damac Park Towers Company regarding the assessment of costs?
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal costs incurred by Damac Park Towers Company Limited following the underlying litigation in CFI 083/2018. After the substantive matter reached a stage where costs were to be assessed, the Defendant initiated the formal process to recover its legal expenditures. The Claimant, Salem Dwela, was served with a Notice of Commencement of Assessment (NOC) on 11 February 2022, which triggered a formal timeline for the Claimant to contest the quantum of costs sought by the Defendant.
The failure of the Claimant to engage with this process resulted in the Defendant filing a formal request for a Default Costs Certificate on 23 March 2022. The Registrar, Nour Hineidi, reviewed the file and determined that the Claimant had failed to file Points of Dispute within the mandatory 21-day window prescribed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). Consequently, the court ordered the Claimant to pay the full amount requested by the Defendant:
In the event the Claimant does not pay the Amount within 21 days from the date of this Order, interest, pursuant to Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments) will accrue on the Amount from 20 April 2022 until the date of full payment.
Which DIFC judicial officer presided over the issuance of the Default Costs Certificate in CFI 083/2018?
The Default Costs Certificate was issued by Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was formally issued on 9 May 2022 at 3:00 PM, following the Registrar’s review of the procedural history, specifically the Defendant’s filing of the Notice of Commencement of Assessment on 11 February 2022 and the subsequent expiration of the period for the Claimant to file Points of Dispute.
What positions did Damac Park Towers Company take regarding the Claimant’s failure to file Points of Dispute?
Damac Park Towers Company Limited adopted a strictly procedural stance, asserting its right to recover costs under the RDC framework. By filing the Notice of Commencement of Assessment on 11 February 2022, the Defendant initiated the mechanism for the assessment of costs. When the Claimant, Salem Dwela, failed to serve Points of Dispute within the 21-day period required by RDC r. 40.15, the Defendant exercised its right under RDC r. 40.17 to request a Default Costs Certificate. The Defendant’s position was that the procedural silence from the Claimant constituted an acceptance of the costs claimed, thereby entitling the Defendant to an immediate order for the full amount of USD 113,706 without the need for a detailed hearing on the merits of each individual cost item.
What was the precise jurisdictional and procedural question the Registrar had to answer regarding the Default Costs Certificate?
The primary question before the Registrar was whether the procedural requirements for the issuance of a Default Costs Certificate under RDC r. 40.17 had been satisfied. Specifically, the Registrar had to determine if the Claimant had been properly served with the Notice of Commencement of Assessment and whether the subsequent 21-day period for filing Points of Dispute, as mandated by RDC r. 40.15, had elapsed without any action from the Claimant. The Registrar was tasked with verifying that the Defendant had fulfilled all administrative prerequisites before the court could exercise its authority to bypass a detailed assessment and grant the certificate for the full claimed amount.
How did Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the RDC procedural test to grant the Default Costs Certificate?
Registrar Hineidi applied a strict interpretation of the procedural rules governing cost assessments. The reasoning process involved a two-step verification. First, the Registrar confirmed the service of the NOC on 11 February 2022. Second, the Registrar verified the absence of any Points of Dispute from the Claimant within the statutory 21-day window. Upon confirming these facts, the Registrar concluded that the Claimant had forfeited the right to challenge the costs. The order was then issued to finalize the recovery process:
In the event the Claimant does not pay the Amount within 21 days from the date of this Order, interest, pursuant to Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments) will accrue on the Amount from 20 April 2022 until the date of full payment.
Which specific RDC rules and Practice Directions governed the Registrar’s decision in CFI 083/2018?
The Registrar’s decision was grounded in the following regulatory framework:
* RDC r. 40.15: This rule establishes the 21-day timeframe for a party to file Points of Dispute following the service of a Notice of Commencement of Assessment.
* RDC r. 40.17: This rule provides the authority for the Registrar to issue a Default Costs Certificate when a party fails to file Points of Dispute within the prescribed time.
* Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments): This instrument was applied to determine the accrual of interest on the unpaid costs, specifically setting the start date for interest accrual at 20 April 2022.
How did the Registrar utilize the procedural framework of the RDC to resolve the cost assessment?
The Registrar utilized the RDC as a mechanism for procedural finality. By strictly enforcing RDC r. 40.15, the court ensured that the litigation process regarding costs could not be indefinitely delayed by a party’s inaction. The Registrar treated the failure to file Points of Dispute as a waiver of the right to contest the bill. Consequently, the court did not need to evaluate the reasonableness of the individual costs, as the procedural default under RDC r. 40.17 effectively converted the Defendant’s claimed amount into a liquidated debt enforceable by the court.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the Registrar?
The Registrar granted the Defendant’s request in full. The Claimant, Salem Dwela, was ordered to pay the Defendant the total sum of USD 113,706. This payment was required to be made within 21 days of the date of the order (9 May 2022). Furthermore, the order stipulated that should the Claimant fail to satisfy the debt within this period, interest would accrue on the amount at the rate prescribed by Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017, calculated from 20 April 2022 until the date of full payment.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding the assessment of costs?
This case serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in the procedural management of cost assessments. Practitioners must ensure that Points of Dispute are filed with absolute adherence to the 21-day limit set out in RDC r. 40.15. Failure to do so results in the immediate loss of the opportunity to challenge the quantum of costs, leading to the issuance of a Default Costs Certificate. Litigants must anticipate that the DIFC Courts will strictly enforce these timelines to maintain the efficiency of the costs assessment process, and that once a default certificate is issued, the amount becomes a final judgment debt subject to interest accrual.
Where can I read the full judgment in Salem Dwela v Damac Park Towers Company [2022] DIFC CFI 083?
The full judgment is available on the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-083-2018-salem-dwela-v-damac-park-towers-company-limited-4
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case precedents were cited in this procedural order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) r. 40.15
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) r. 40.17
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments)