The DIFC Court of First Instance exercised its discretion to bypass standard Registrar assessment procedures, opting for a summary assessment of costs to ensure judicial economy following the Defendant's failure to engage with the post-judgment application.
Why did International Electro-mechanical Services Co. file an application for USD 518,526.68 in CFI 114/2020?
Following a successful judgment on the merits delivered on 8 March 2023, the Claimant sought to recover its legal costs incurred during the litigation. While the initial judgment mandated that these costs be assessed by the Registrar on an indemnity basis if the parties could not reach an agreement, the Claimant moved to expedite this recovery process.
The Claimant filed a formal application to have the Court determine the quantum of these costs directly, rather than proceeding through the standard, more time-consuming detailed assessment process. As noted in the court record:
On 5 April 2023, the Claimant filed an application seeking for its costs to be assessed on an immediate basis in the amount of USD 518,526.68 (the “Application”).
The amount of USD 518,526.68 represented the total sum the Claimant sought to recover from Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC. The application was supported by evidence, including a witness statement from Antonios Dimitracopoulos, intended to justify the quantum of the costs claimed on an indemnity basis.
Which judge presided over the summary assessment of costs in CFI 114/2020?
The order was issued by Justice Lord Angus Glennie, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The decision was rendered on 4 May 2023, following the Claimant’s application filed on 5 April 2023.
How did the Defendant, Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC, respond to the Claimant’s application for costs?
The Defendant, Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC, failed to file any response to the Claimant’s application. By choosing not to contest the application or the quantum of costs requested, the Defendant effectively waived its right to participate in the detailed assessment process that had been contemplated in the original 8 March 2023 judgment. This lack of engagement was a pivotal factor in the Court's decision to depart from the standard procedure.
What was the jurisdictional question regarding the Court's power to bypass the Registrar for cost assessments?
The primary legal issue was whether the Court possessed the procedural flexibility to override its own prior order—which had directed that costs be assessed by the Registrar—in favor of a summary assessment. The Court had to determine if the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of unnecessary procedural steps justified a departure from the established path of a detailed assessment, particularly when the respondent had failed to participate in the process.
How did Justice Lord Angus Glennie justify the summary assessment of costs in CFI 114/2020?
Justice Lord Angus Glennie relied on the principle of judicial economy, noting that the Registrar’s assessment process would be redundant given the lack of opposition from the Defendant. The Court determined that it was within its inherent powers to expedite the finalization of the litigation by assessing the costs itself.
The reasoning emphasized that the procedural requirement for a Registrar’s assessment was not an absolute bar to the Court taking control of the matter when circumstances favored efficiency. As the Court explained:
Although my Order required that costs be subject to an assessment by the Registrar, in the interests of saving time and costs in commencing the detailed assessment proceedings and in circumstances where the Application has not been opposed, I shall grant the Claimant’s Application and order that costs be awarded to the Claimant summarily assessed in the amount of USD 518,526.68.
This approach prioritized the finality of the proceedings and the reduction of further legal expenditure for the parties involved.
Which specific provisions of the original judgment were modified by the 4 May 2023 order?
The Court modified the enforcement mechanism established in the 8 March 2023 judgment. The original order had stipulated:
The relevant wording of the Order is set out below: “The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant its costs of this action on an indemnity basis, such costs to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.”
By issuing the 4 May 2023 order, Justice Lord Angus Glennie effectively superseded this requirement, replacing the Registrar-led assessment with a direct judicial assessment of the total sum.
How does this order align with the DIFC Rules of Court regarding the assessment of costs?
The order reflects the Court's broad discretion under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to manage litigation efficiently. While the RDC typically provides for detailed assessment by the Registrar, the Court retains the authority to summarily assess costs to avoid the "time and costs" associated with protracted assessment proceedings. By citing the lack of opposition, the Court ensured that the summary assessment remained consistent with the principles of fairness and procedural efficiency, as the Defendant had ample opportunity to challenge the quantum but failed to do so.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief granted to the Claimant?
The Court granted the Claimant’s application in its entirety. The final order confirmed the specific amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant. The operative part of the order stated:
The Claimant’s costs shall be assessed by the Court in the sum of USD 518,526.68 (the “Costs”).
The Defendant was further ordered to satisfy this payment within a strict timeframe of two weeks from the date of the order.
What are the practical implications for practitioners seeking to recover costs in the DIFC?
This order serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court is pragmatic regarding cost recovery. Practitioners should note that if an opponent fails to engage with a costs application, the Court may be willing to bypass the Registrar and perform a summary assessment to save time and resources. Litigants should be prepared to provide robust evidence in support of their costs claims at the first instance, as the Court may move to finalize the amount summarily if the respondent remains silent.
Where can I read the full judgment in International Electro-mechanical Services Co. v Emirates Speciality Hospital FZ-LLC [2023] DIFC CFI 114?
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-1142020-international-electro-mechanical-services-co-llc-v-emirates-speciality-hospital-fz-llc-3
The document is also available via the following CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-114-2020_20230504.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law cited in this specific order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- DIFC Court Law (regarding the Court's general powers of case management)