This order addresses the quantification of legal costs following the successful application for a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) in the ongoing arbitration-related dispute between Olympio and Olwin.
What was the specific monetary dispute regarding the Claimant’s costs in ARB 024/2025 following the grant of the Worldwide Freezing Order?
The dispute centered on the recovery of legal expenses incurred by the Claimant, Olympio, in securing a WFO against the Defendant, Olwin. Following the substantive order issued on 7 August 2025, which granted the Claimant’s application for the freezing of assets, the Claimant sought reimbursement for the costs associated with that specific procedural victory. The Claimant submitted a Statement of Costs totaling USD 19,403.95. The Court was tasked with assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of this sum in the context of the arbitration-related proceedings.
The Court’s determination resulted in a reduction of the claimed amount, ultimately awarding the Claimant 80% of the requested figure. As stated in the Order:
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of USD 15,523.16 (the “Costs Award”), representing 80% of the Claimed Amount in the Statement of Costs.
This assessment reflects the Court’s discretionary power under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) to moderate costs even when a party has been successful in their application. Further details regarding the procedural history of this dispute can be found at Olympio v Olwin [2025] DIFC ARB 024: The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in the Shadow of the CJT.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Courts on 15 August 2025?
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi presided over the matter in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 15 August 2025, following the Court's review of the Statement of Costs filed by the Claimant on 12 August 2025, which followed the initial WFO order granted by the same judge on 7 August 2025.
What were the respective positions of Olympio and Olwin regarding the recoverability of the USD 19,403.95 in costs?
The Claimant, Olympio, asserted that the full amount of USD 19,403.95 was reasonably and necessarily incurred in the pursuit of the Worldwide Freezing Order. Their position relied on the complexity of the application and the necessity of the WFO to protect the integrity of the underlying arbitration proceedings. Conversely, the Defendant, Olwin, challenged the quantum of these costs, arguing that the amount claimed was disproportionate to the work performed or the procedural stage of the case. While the specific written submissions of the parties are not detailed in the final order, the Court’s decision to award 80% of the claimed sum indicates that the judge found the Claimant’s costs to be largely, but not entirely, justified under the RDC standards of reasonableness.
What was the precise legal question the Court had to answer regarding the application of RDC Part 38 to the Claimant’s Statement of Costs?
The Court was required to determine the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful party under RDC Part 38. The doctrinal issue was not whether the Claimant was entitled to costs—as that had been established by the 7 August 2025 order—but rather the application of the principle of proportionality and reasonableness in the assessment of those costs. The Court had to evaluate whether the full amount of USD 19,403.95 met the threshold for recovery under the DIFC’s cost-shifting regime, or whether a downward adjustment was required to reflect the Court’s assessment of the work actually performed.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the principles of cost assessment to reach the final award of USD 15,523.16?
In exercising its discretion, the Court reviewed the Statement of Costs alongside the procedural history of the WFO application. The judge applied the standard of reasonableness inherent in the RDC, ensuring that the costs awarded were not excessive relative to the nature of the application. By awarding 80% of the total, the Court effectively signaled that while the Claimant’s pursuit of the WFO was justified and successful, certain elements of the claimed costs did not meet the strict criteria for full recovery. The Court’s reasoning is encapsulated in the following directive:
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of USD 15,523.16 (the “Costs Award”), representing 80% of the Claimed Amount in the Statement of Costs.
This approach balances the right of a successful litigant to be indemnified for their legal expenses with the Court’s duty to prevent the inflation of costs in arbitration-related interlocutory applications.
Which specific RDC rules and Practice Directions governed the Court’s authority to issue this costs order?
The Court’s authority to assess and award these costs is derived from Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which governs the general principles of costs. Specifically, the Court exercised its power to determine the timing and payment obligations of the costs award under RDC 38.40. Furthermore, the Court invoked Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 to establish the interest rate applicable in the event of non-payment.
How did the Court utilize RDC 38.40 and Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 to structure the payment terms of the Costs Award?
The Court utilized RDC 38.40 to mandate a strict timeline for the settlement of the costs, ensuring that the successful party receives payment within a defined period. The order explicitly links the payment obligation to this rule:
The Costs Award shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to RDC 38.40.
Additionally, to ensure compliance and provide a mechanism for enforcement, the Court applied Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 regarding interest on judgments. This provides a clear financial incentive for the Defendant to comply with the order, as failure to do so triggers a statutory interest rate of 9% per annum.
What was the final disposition and the specific financial obligations imposed on the Defendant, Olwin?
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of USD 15,523.16. This amount represents the final assessment of the costs associated with the WFO application. The order further stipulated that this payment must be made within 14 days of 15 August 2025. Should the Defendant fail to meet this deadline, the Court provided for the accrual of interest:
In the event the Defendant 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 is made, in accordance with Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners seeking to enforce Worldwide Freezing Orders in the DIFC?
This order serves as a reminder that even when a party successfully secures a significant interlocutory remedy like a WFO, the recovery of associated legal costs is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. Practitioners must ensure that their Statements of Costs are meticulously prepared and fully supported by evidence of work performed, as the Court will not hesitate to apply a percentage reduction if it deems the claimed amount disproportionate. For further context on the broader procedural battle in this case, see the following related orders:
- OLYMPIO v OLWIN [2025] DIFC ARB 024 — The limits of procedural obstruction in the shadow of the CJT (07 August 2025)
- OLYMPIO v OLWIN [2025] DIFC ARB 024 — The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in the Shadow of the CJT (28 August 2025)
- OLYMPIO v OLWIN [2026] DIFC ARB 024 — Renewed application for permission to appeal jurisdictional findings (24 March 2026)
Where can I read the full judgment in OLYMPIO v OLWIN [2025] DIFC ARB 024?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website at https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0242025-olympio-v-olwin-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-024-2025_20250815.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
None cited in this specific order.
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38
- RDC 38.40
- Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017 (Interest on Judgments)