What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the Defendant’s legal costs in Ohtli v Onora [2026] DIFC ARB 034?
The dispute centered on the quantification of legal fees and disbursements incurred by the Defendant, Onora, following the successful discharge of an interim anti-suit injunction that had been granted against them on 12 September 2025. After the Court set aside the injunction on 22 December 2025, the Defendant sought recovery of its legal costs, leading to the filing of a Statement of Costs.
The Claimant, Ohtli, was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs on a standard basis. The Defendant’s claim for these costs amounted to USD 47,372.12. Ultimately, the Court determined that while the work was reasonably incurred, a reduction was necessary to meet the requirements of proportionality.
The Claimant shall pay the Defendant the amount of USD 37,897.70 (the “Costs Award”), representing 80% of the Defendant’s total costs claimed in the Statement of Costs, assessed on the standard basis.
https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0342025-ohtli-v-onora-2
Which judge presided over the cost assessment in Ohtli v Onora [2026] DIFC ARB 034?
The matter was heard by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi, sitting in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The final order regarding the assessment of costs was issued on 28 January 2026, following the Defendant's filing of its Statement of Costs on 29 December 2025.
How did the parties approach the recovery of costs following the discharge of the anti-suit injunction in Ohtli v Onora?
The Defendant, Onora, sought to recover its full legal expenditure incurred during the set-aside proceedings, which included the preparation of the Set Aside Application and attendance at the return date hearing. The Defendant submitted a Statement of Costs totaling USD 47,372.12, asserting that the fees were reflective of the work performed by two fee earners.
The Claimant, Ohtli, was subject to the Court’s previous order dated 22 December 2025, which mandated the payment of the Defendant’s costs on a standard basis. The Claimant’s position was effectively addressed by the Court’s subsequent exercise of its discretion to moderate the final amount payable, ensuring that the costs were not merely "reasonably incurred" but also "proportionate" to the issues at stake in the anti-suit injunction challenge.
The Defendant filed its Statement of Costs on 29 December 2025, claiming a total sum of USD 47,372.12, comprising legal fees and disbursements.
What was the precise legal question regarding the assessment of costs that H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi had to resolve?
The Court was tasked with determining the recoverable amount of costs under the "standard basis" of assessment. The core doctrinal issue was whether the total sum claimed by the Defendant, while based on hourly rates consistent with Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023, met the threshold of being "proportionate" under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The Court had to balance the principle of indemnifying the successful party with the duty to prevent excessive or disproportionate cost recovery in procedural disputes.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the test of proportionality to the Defendant’s Statement of Costs?
The Court utilized a two-step reasoning process. First, it verified that the work performed by the two fee earners was reasonably incurred and that their hourly rates aligned with the guidance provided in Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023. Having satisfied this, the Court then applied its discretionary power to ensure the final award was proportionate to the nature of the proceedings.
I therefore award the Defendant 80% of the costs claimed, namely USD 37,897.70, as a fair, reasonable, and proportionate quantification of the Defendant’s recoverable costs.
The judge concluded that while the underlying work was legitimate, the total figure required a moderate reduction to align with the standard basis of assessment, resulting in the 80% award.
Which specific RDC rules and practice directions governed the assessment of costs in this case?
The Court relied heavily on Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically RDC 38.8 and RDC 38.23, which dictate the standard basis of assessment. Under these rules, the Court is empowered to allow only those costs that are reasonable and proportionate. Additionally, the Court referenced Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 regarding the accrual of interest on judgments, setting the interest rate at 9% per annum in the event of a failure to pay the Costs Award within the prescribed 14-day window.
How did the Court utilize Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023 in the assessment of the Defendant’s legal fees?
Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023 served as the benchmark for the Court to evaluate the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by the Defendant’s legal representatives. The Court explicitly noted that the rates applied by the fee earners were "broadly consistent" with this guidance. This finding was crucial, as it allowed the Court to accept the legitimacy of the legal expenditure before moving to the separate, discretionary exercise of applying a percentage reduction to ensure proportionality.
I am satisfied that the work undertaken was reasonably incurred and that the hourly rates applied are broadly consistent with the guidance set out in Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023.
What was the final outcome and relief granted by the Court in Ohtli v Onora?
The Court ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant a total of USD 37,897.70. This amount was to be paid within 14 days of the order, pursuant to RDC 38.40. Furthermore, the Court included a protective provision for the Defendant: should the Claimant fail to make the payment within the 14-day period, interest would accrue on the outstanding balance at a rate of 9% per annum until the debt is fully satisfied.
In the event that the Claimant fails to pay the Costs Award within 14 days of this Order, interest shall accrue at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this Order until full payment, in accordance with Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners involved in DIFC arbitration and anti-suit injunctions?
This decision serves as a reminder that even when legal fees are calculated using compliant hourly rates, the DIFC Court maintains a robust discretion to reduce costs to ensure they remain proportionate to the matter at hand. Practitioners should anticipate that the Court will scrutinize the total "value" of the work performed against the complexity of the procedural application. For a deeper analysis of the risks associated with procedural overreach in these types of disputes, see the following analysis: Ohtli v Onora [2026] DIFC ARB 034: The High Cost of Procedural Overreach in Anti-Suit Injunctions.
Where can I read the full judgment in Ohtli v Onora [2026] DIFC ARB 034?
The full order with reasons can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0342025-ohtli-v-onora-2 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-034-2025_20260128.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No specific case law precedents were cited in the text of this order. |
Legislation referenced
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): Part 38, RDC 38.8, RDC 38.23, RDC 38.40
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments)
- Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023 (Guidance on Hourly Rates)