This consent order formalizes the settlement of legal costs between Mohammed Sadiyyah and the Khatib & Alami entities following a jurisdictional challenge in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
What was the underlying dispute in CFI 099/2021 that led to the USD 150,000 cost order against Mohammed Sadiyyah?
The litigation originated from a jurisdictional challenge brought by the Defendants, Khatib & Alami and Khatib & Alami Partners PTD Ltd, against the Claimant, Mohammed Sadiyyah. The dispute centered on the Claimant’s attempt to bring proceedings within the DIFC Court, which the Defendants contested via Application No. CFI-099-2021/1 filed on 18 January 2022. The court’s involvement in the matter was primarily defined by the determination of whether the DIFC Court held the requisite jurisdiction to hear the substantive claims brought by Sadiyyah.
Following the jurisdictional contest, Justice Wayne Martin issued an order on 14 June 2022, which ultimately resulted in the Claimant being ordered to pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings. The parties subsequently engaged in a process to assess the quantum of these costs, leading to the filing of a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of a Bill of Costs. The parties eventually reached a settlement regarding the total amount of these costs, which was formalized in the October 2022 consent order.
The costs due to the Defendants under paragraph 6 of the June Order shall be fixed at USD 150,000.
The resolution of this cost assessment effectively concluded the procedural phase of the dispute, avoiding the need for a full Registrar-led assessment of the bill of costs. Further details regarding the procedural history can be found at the official DIFC Courts judgment portal.
Which judge presided over the issuance of the consent order in CFI 099/2021?
The consent order was issued by Acting Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban on 6 October 2022. This order followed the earlier substantive ruling by Justice Wayne Martin, dated 14 June 2022, which had established the liability of the Claimant for the Defendants' legal costs. The Registrar’s role in this instance was to formalize the agreement reached between the parties regarding the specific quantum and the installment-based payment schedule.
What were the positions of Mohammed Sadiyyah and Khatib & Alami regarding the assessment of costs?
The Defendants, Khatib & Alami and Khatib & Alami Partners PTD Ltd, initiated the costs recovery process by filing a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of a Bill of Costs after Justice Wayne Martin’s June 2022 order. Their position was that they were entitled to recover the full extent of their legal expenditure incurred during the jurisdictional challenge. Conversely, the Claimant, Mohammed Sadiyyah, sought to resolve the liability without proceeding to a full, contested assessment before the Registrar. By entering into this consent order, the parties avoided the time and expense of a formal assessment hearing, opting instead to fix the total liability at USD 150,000.
What was the specific legal question the court had to answer regarding the payment of costs in CFI 099/2021?
The court was tasked with determining the final quantum of costs payable by the Claimant to the Defendants following the June 2022 order. The doctrinal issue was not whether the Claimant was liable—that had been established by Justice Wayne Martin—but rather the quantification of those costs and the enforcement mechanism for the payment schedule. The court had to ensure that the agreed-upon sum and the installment plan were compliant with DIFC procedural rules and that the consequences of default were clearly defined to prevent further litigation on the same matter.
How did the DIFC Court apply the principles of party autonomy in the settlement of costs in CFI 099/2021?
The court exercised its authority to endorse the agreement reached between the parties, effectively converting a private settlement into a binding court order. By doing so, the court ensured that the settlement was enforceable under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The reasoning focused on the efficiency of the judicial process, allowing the parties to dictate the terms of payment while maintaining the court's oversight through the inclusion of interest provisions for non-compliance.
The Claimant shall pay the said USD150,000 to the Defendants in the following instalments: a.
This approach reflects the DIFC Court’s preference for parties to resolve ancillary matters like costs through negotiation, thereby reducing the burden on the Registrar’s office and the court’s resources. The order serves as a final resolution to the costs assessment process, precluding any further claims regarding the bill of costs.
Which specific DIFC statutes and practice directions were applied in the consent order?
The order explicitly references Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017, which governs the application of interest on judgment debts and costs. By invoking this practice direction, the court established a clear framework for the accrual of interest in the event of the Claimant's default. Additionally, the order relies on the authority granted to the Registrar to issue consent orders under the RDC, specifically in relation to the assessment of costs following a substantive order by a judge of the Court of First Instance.
How did the court utilize the June 2022 Order of Justice Wayne Martin in the final consent order?
The June 2022 order served as the foundational authority for the entire cost recovery process. It established the Claimant's liability for costs, which the Registrar then quantified in the October 2022 order. The Registrar’s order specifically referenced "paragraph 6 of the June Order" as the source of the obligation, ensuring that the consent order remained tethered to the original judicial determination of liability. This linkage is critical for the enforcement of the debt, as it provides a clear chain of authority from the initial jurisdictional ruling to the final payment schedule.
What was the final disposition and the specific relief granted to the Defendants?
The court ordered the Claimant to pay a total of USD 150,000 to the Defendants. The payment was structured into three equal installments of USD 50,000, due on 14 October 2022, 14 November 2022, and 14 December 2022. The order also stipulated that there would be no further proceedings regarding the Costs Assessment, effectively closing the file on the matter.
Pursuant to Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017, if the Claimant fails to pay any sum due under paragraph 2 hereof by the relevant due date, simple interest at a rate of 9% p.a. shall accrue on any unpaid sum until payment. 4.
This provision ensures that the Defendants have a clear path to recovery without needing to return to court unless the Claimant defaults on the payment schedule.
What are the wider implications of this consent order for DIFC practitioners?
This case highlights the importance of negotiating cost settlements to avoid the protracted and costly process of a formal Registrar’s assessment. Practitioners should note that the DIFC Court will readily formalize such agreements into consent orders, which carry the full weight of the court’s enforcement powers. The inclusion of a 9% interest rate for late payments serves as a standard but potent deterrent against default, reinforcing the necessity for claimants to adhere strictly to court-sanctioned payment schedules.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mohammed Sadiyyah v Khatib & Alami [2022] DIFC CFI 099?
The full text of the consent order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0992021-mohammed-sadiyyah-v-1-khatib-alami-2-khatib-alami-partners-ptd-ltd. The document is also available via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-099-2021_20221006.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Mohammed Sadiyyah v Khatib & Alami | CFI 099/2021 | Order with Reasons of Justice Wayne Martin dated 14 June 2022 |
Legislation referenced:
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgment Debts)
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)