This order marks the formal quantification of legal costs following a successful application in the Technology and Construction Division, emphasizing the procedural necessity of responding to Statements of Costs to avoid summary assessment.
What was the specific nature of the dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital regarding the AED 9,744 cost assessment?
The litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and the defendants, Tabarak Investment Capital and Mr. Christian Thurner, represents a complex commercial dispute handled within the specialized Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts. The specific matter at hand involved the assessment of legal costs arising from Application No. TCD-001-2020/8, which had been filed on 24 August 2021. Following a prior order by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri, which established the liability of the Second Defendant for these costs, the Registrar was tasked with the final quantification of the amount due.
The dispute reached this stage after the Claimant submitted a Statement of Costs (SOC) on 1 September 2021. The Second Defendant, Mr. Christian Thurner, failed to provide any objection or formal response to the figures presented in the SOC. Consequently, the Registrar proceeded to assess the costs based on the uncontested submission. The final determination was issued on 14 October 2021, mandating payment within a strict 14-day window. As noted in the operative part of the order:
The Claimant’s costs are immediately assessed in the amount of AED 9,744 (including VAT) and are payable to the Claimant, by the Second Defendant, within 14 days from the date of this Order.
This matter is part of a broader series of procedural developments in this case, including HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Formalizing TCD jurisdiction for complex commercial disputes.
Which judge presided over the cost assessment in TCD 001/2020 and in what capacity did they act?
The assessment of costs was conducted by Registrar Nour Hineidi of the DIFC Courts. The order was issued on 14 October 2021, following the prior substantive order issued by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 1 September 2021. The Registrar acted under the authority granted by the Court to finalize the quantum of costs associated with the specific application, ensuring that the procedural requirements of the TCD were satisfied.
What were the respective positions of Huobi OTC DMCC and the Second Defendant regarding the Statement of Costs?
The Claimant, Huobi OTC DMCC, took the position that the costs incurred in relation to Application No. TCD-001-2020/8 were reasonable and recoverable, as evidenced by their submission of the Statement of Costs on 1 September 2021. This submission provided the necessary breakdown for the court to perform an assessment.
Conversely, the Second Defendant, Mr. Christian Thurner, adopted a position of silence. By failing to file any objection or response to the Claimant’s SOC, the Second Defendant effectively waived the opportunity to challenge the reasonableness or proportionality of the AED 9,744 figure. In the DIFC Courts, such a failure to engage with the cost assessment process typically leads the Registrar to accept the Claimant's figures as the basis for the final order, provided they appear prima facie compliant with the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC).
What was the precise legal question the Registrar had to answer regarding the assessment of costs?
The primary legal question before the Registrar was whether the costs claimed by the Claimant in the Statement of Costs were appropriate for summary assessment in the absence of any challenge from the Second Defendant. The Registrar was required to determine if the amount of AED 9,744 met the standards of reasonableness and necessity under the RDC, given that the underlying liability for those costs had already been established by the order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri. The Registrar’s task was not to re-litigate the merits of the application but to perform a final quantification of the financial burden to be borne by the Second Defendant.
How did Registrar Nour Hineidi apply the test for cost assessment in the absence of a response from the Second Defendant?
The Registrar’s reasoning was predicated on the procedural history of the case and the specific directive provided by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri. Upon verifying that the Claimant had submitted a valid Statement of Costs and that the Second Defendant had failed to lodge any objection, the Registrar exercised the court's power to finalize the assessment summarily. This approach aligns with the court's objective to manage litigation efficiently and ensure that procedural timelines are respected by all parties.
The Registrar confirmed that the assessment was a direct consequence of the Second Defendant’s inaction. By failing to contest the SOC, the Second Defendant left the court with no alternative but to approve the figures presented by the Claimant. As stated in the order:
The Claimant’s costs are immediately assessed in the amount of AED 9,744 (including VAT) and are payable to the Claimant, by the Second Defendant, within 14 days from the date of this Order.
This reasoning ensures that the Claimant is not unduly prejudiced by the Second Defendant’s failure to engage with the cost-recovery process, reinforcing the principle that parties must actively participate in all stages of DIFC litigation, including the assessment of costs.
Which specific RDC rules and statutory authorities governed the Registrar’s assessment of costs?
The assessment was governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those sections pertaining to the assessment of costs and the powers of the Registrar. The Registrar relied on the authority granted under the RDC to assess costs summarily when a party fails to object to a Statement of Costs. Furthermore, the order was issued pursuant to the specific direction of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri, which provided the jurisdictional basis for the Registrar to intervene and quantify the specific amount of AED 9,744.
How did the court utilize the precedent of prior orders in the Huobi OTC DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital litigation?
The court utilized the order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 1 September 2021 as the foundational authority for the assessment. This prior order served as a binding instruction that the Second Defendant was liable for the costs of Application No. TCD-001-2020/8. The Registrar’s role was limited to the execution of this instruction. By referencing the prior order, the Registrar ensured consistency and adherence to the procedural hierarchy within the TCD, demonstrating how individual orders in a complex, multi-stage case like this one build upon each other to reach a final resolution.
What was the final outcome and the specific relief granted to Huobi OTC DMCC?
The Registrar ordered that the Claimant’s costs be assessed at AED 9,744, a sum inclusive of VAT. The Second Defendant, Mr. Christian Thurner, was ordered to pay this amount to the Claimant within 14 days from the date of the order (14 October 2021). This disposition effectively concluded the cost-assessment phase for the specified application, providing the Claimant with a clear, enforceable monetary judgment against the Second Defendant.
What are the wider implications for practitioners litigating in the DIFC Technology and Construction Division?
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of active procedural management in the DIFC Courts. Practitioners must recognize that a failure to respond to a Statement of Costs is treated as a tacit acceptance of the figures presented. In the TCD, where litigation can involve complex technical and financial issues, the cost-assessment phase is a critical juncture. Litigants must ensure that they or their counsel review and, if necessary, challenge Statements of Costs within the prescribed timeframes to avoid summary assessments that may be unfavorable. This order reinforces the court's commitment to procedural efficiency and the timely resolution of ancillary cost disputes. For further context on the procedural evolution of this case, see HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural framework for cryptocurrency litigation.
Where can I read the full judgment in HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001?
The full order can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-001-2020-huobi-otc-dmcc-v-1-tabarak-investment-capital-limited-2-mr-christian-thurner-15 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-001-2020_20211014.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Order of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 1 September 2021