This Final Costs Certificate quantifies the financial liability of Gham 2 Limited following the substantive ruling in CFI 100/2021, establishing the specific quantum of legal costs recoverable by the Defendants.
What was the specific monetary dispute between Gham 2 Limited and the Defendants in CFI 100/2021?
The litigation in CFI 100/2021 involved a dispute between the Claimant, Gham 2 Limited, and three Defendants: Mr. Ajay Bhatia, Tiya Holdings Limited, and SOL Internationl Properties Limited. Following the substantive Order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 26 April 2023, the court determined that the Claimant was liable for the Defendants' legal costs. The subsequent assessment process focused on the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs incurred by the Defendants throughout the proceedings and the costs assessment process itself.
The dispute culminated in the issuance of a Final Costs Certificate by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo, which quantified the total liability at AED 335,946.76. This amount represents the final determination of the court regarding the financial burden to be borne by the Claimant for the Defendants' legal representation. The breakdown of this figure includes both the primary legal costs incurred during the litigation and the specific fees associated with the commencement of the costs assessment process.
Which judicial officer presided over the final assessment of costs in CFI 100/2021?
The Final Costs Certificate was issued by Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo of the DIFC Court of First Instance on 15 September 2023. This administrative act followed the substantive determination of liability for costs previously established by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri in her Order dated 26 April 2023.
What were the procedural steps taken by the parties regarding the Bill of Costs in CFI 100/2021?
The assessment process was initiated by the Defendants, who filed a Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs on 26 July 2023. This document set out the Defendants' claim for legal fees and disbursements incurred during the litigation. In response, the Claimant, Gham 2 Limited, filed its Points of Dispute on 15 August 2023, challenging specific elements of the costs claimed by the Defendants.
The Defendants subsequently filed a Reply to the Points of Dispute on 5 September 2023, addressing the Claimant’s objections and justifying the quantum of the costs sought. This exchange of pleadings provided the evidentiary basis upon which Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo adjudicated the final amount to be paid, ensuring that the costs were assessed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the RDC.
What was the primary legal question regarding the assessment of costs under RDC Part 38?
The court was tasked with determining the final quantum of recoverable costs following a successful application for costs by the Defendants. The legal question centered on the application of RDC Part 38, which governs the principles of costs assessment in the DIFC Courts. Specifically, the court had to reconcile the Defendants' claimed costs with the Claimant’s Points of Dispute to arrive at a figure that was both reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the underlying litigation.
The court had to ensure that the final sum reflected the actual costs incurred during the proceedings, including the costs of the assessment process itself, while adhering to the procedural safeguards intended to prevent the recovery of excessive or unreasonable legal fees. This required a balancing exercise between the right of the successful party to be indemnified for their legal expenses and the obligation of the court to oversee the fairness of the costs recovery process.
How did Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo apply the RDC framework to reach the final costs figure?
Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo exercised his authority under RDC Part 38 and Part 40 to finalize the assessment. The reasoning process involved a review of the Defendants' Bill of Costs, the Claimant’s Points of Dispute, and the Defendants' Reply to those points. By evaluating these submissions, the Assistant Registrar determined the appropriate quantum to be awarded to the Defendants.
The final order explicitly categorized the total amount into two distinct components: the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the assessment process. The Assistant Registrar’s reasoning ensured that the final figure was legally enforceable and clearly delineated, providing the Claimant with a precise obligation to satisfy the judgment within the stipulated 21-day period.
Which specific RDC rules and practice directions were applied in the assessment of CFI 100/2021?
The assessment was conducted pursuant to Part 38 and Part 40 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). These rules provide the procedural framework for the assessment of costs, including the commencement of the process, the filing of points of dispute, and the issuance of a final certificate. Furthermore, the court applied Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments) to establish the post-judgment interest rate applicable in the event of non-payment.
The application of these rules ensured that the assessment process remained consistent with the established procedural standards of the DIFC Courts. By invoking these specific provisions, the Assistant Registrar provided a clear legal basis for the enforcement of the costs order, including the imposition of a 9% per annum interest rate on any outstanding balance following the 21-day grace period.
How did the court address the recovery of fees paid for the commencement of the costs assessment process?
The court explicitly included the fee paid by the Defendants for the commencement of the costs assessment process as a recoverable item. Paragraph 1(b) of the Order specifies that AED 23,438.16 of the total amount is attributed to this specific fee. This demonstrates the court's adherence to the principle that the costs of the assessment process itself are recoverable by the successful party, provided they are properly documented and claimed within the procedural framework of the RDC.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the court?
The court ordered the Claimant, Gham 2 Limited, to pay the Defendants a total sum of AED 335,946.76. This amount was broken down into AED 312,508.60 for the costs of the proceedings and the assessment process, and AED 23,438.16 for the commencement fee. The Claimant was granted a period of 21 days from the date of the certificate to satisfy this payment.
Failure to comply with this order triggers the application of post-judgment interest. Pursuant to Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017, interest at a rate of 9% per annum will accrue on the total amount from the end of the 21-day period until the date of full payment. This provides a strong incentive for the timely settlement of the costs liability.
What are the practical implications for litigants regarding the assessment of costs in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of the costs assessment process in the DIFC. Litigants must be prepared to justify their costs through detailed Bills of Costs and must be ready to respond to Points of Dispute with comprehensive Replies. The inclusion of assessment-related fees in the final award highlights that the costs of the assessment process itself can be significant and are recoverable.
Furthermore, the strict 21-day payment window and the automatic application of 9% post-judgment interest underscore the necessity for parties to manage their costs liabilities proactively. Practitioners should ensure that all costs claims are meticulously documented to withstand scrutiny during the assessment phase, as the court will strictly apply the RDC to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.
Where can I read the full judgment in Gham 2 Limited v Mr Ajay Bhatia [2023] DIFC CFI 100?
The full text of the Final Costs Certificate can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1002021-gham-2-limited-v-1-mr-ajay-bhatia-2-tiya-holdings-limited-3-sol-internationl-properties-limited
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Part 38, Part 40
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments)