This order addresses the consequences of failing to adhere to the strict procedural requirements for cost submissions under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), resulting in a significant reduction of the recoverable amount.
How did the DIFC Court handle the AED 153,380 costs claim in Architeriors Interior Design v Emirates National Investment Co?
The dispute concerns the assessment of costs following a series of interlocutory applications in a construction matter regarding the Amber Residency refurbishment. The Claimant, Architeriors Interior Design, sought to recover AED 153,380 in legal costs associated with a Permission to Appeal Application and a related substantive application. The Defendant, Emirates National Investment Co, challenged the quantum and the procedural validity of the Claimant's submission, arguing that the documentation provided was insufficient to allow for a proper judicial assessment.
The court was tasked with determining the recoverable amount after the Claimant failed to provide a granular breakdown of hours, fee-earner seniority, or tasks performed, as required by the RDC. The court ultimately rejected the full claim, noting that the Claimant’s documentation was fundamentally flawed and included non-recoverable enforcement fees. As noted in the court's reasoning:
I consider that there is substantial force in relation to the Defendant’s criticisms of the Claimant’s statement of costs. In particular, there is no identification of what hours were spent by what fee-earner in what period on what tasks. I do not consider the fact that there was a capped fee to be relevant to this failing.
For further context on the procedural history of this dispute, see the sibling order: ARCHITERIORS INTERIOR DESIGN v EMIRATES NATIONAL INVESTMENT CO [2025] DIFC TCD 001 — Assessing interest and costs in construction disputes (22 August 2025).
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in TCD 001/2024?
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart presided over this matter in the Technology and Construction Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 3 December 2025, following a series of submissions from both parties regarding the Claimant's statement of costs.
What were the specific arguments advanced by Architeriors Interior Design and Emirates National Investment Co regarding the costs claim?
The Claimant argued that its statement of costs substantially complied with Form P38/01 and that the Defendant’s objections ignored the commercial reality of their agreed fee structure. Architeriors asserted that their fees were charged on an hourly basis with a monthly aggregate cap of AED 60,000, and that they were entitled to recover enforcement costs incurred during the proceedings.
Conversely, the Defendant argued that the Claimant’s submission was non-compliant with RDC 38.33–38.36, specifically citing the lack of detail regarding hours, fee-earner seniority, and the absence of a properly signed form. The Defendant contended that these failures rendered the court unable to perform an accurate assessment and that the inclusion of enforcement fees was legally baseless.
What was the precise doctrinal issue regarding the recoverability of enforcement fees in Architeriors v Emirates National Investment?
The court had to determine whether enforcement fees, which were not part of the underlying order for costs, could be recovered as part of the costs of the Permission to Appeal Application. The legal question centered on the scope of the court's previous order and whether the Claimant could unilaterally expand the definition of recoverable costs to include enforcement-related expenses that were not contemplated by the court's earlier directions.
How did H.E. Justice Roger Stewart apply the RDC requirements to the costs assessment?
Justice Stewart applied the test of procedural compliance under RDC 38.33–38.37, emphasizing that the burden lies with the party claiming costs to provide a schedule that allows the judge to make an immediate assessment. The judge found that the Claimant’s failure to particularize hours and fee-earner qualifications made the assessment process unnecessarily difficult.
The Claimant’s failures means that the assessment of the appropriate fees is more difficult than it should be. In the circumstances, I propose to allow the amount which I can be satisfied is due to th
The court further clarified that while a fee cap might exist in a private retainer, it does not excuse the failure to provide the court with the underlying data required to justify the reasonableness of the costs claimed.
Which RDC rules were central to the court's decision in TCD 001/2024?
The court relied heavily on RDC 38.33, which mandates that parties assist the judge in the immediate assessment of costs, and RDC 38.34, which requires a schedule detailing the number of hours, hourly rates, and the seniority of fee-earners. Additionally, RDC 38.37 was invoked to justify the court's decision to penalize the Claimant for non-compliance by reducing the total award.
How did the court treat the Claimant's request for indemnity basis costs?
The court rejected the Claimant's assertion that costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis. Justice Stewart noted that the circumstances of the case did not warrant such an award, and even if the basis of assessment were broader, the lack of detail in the Claimant's schedule would have limited the court's ability to award higher sums.
This is also not a case where I consider it appropriate to award costs on an indemnity basis. Further as the basis of assessment only has limited effects, such an award would not have changed my assessment.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief ordered by the court?
The court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant AED 60,000 by 15 December 2025. This amount was assessed as the total recoverable costs for the Permission to Appeal Application and the related application. The court explicitly excluded the enforcement fees claimed by the Claimant, stating:
I also consider that the Claimant is not entitled to recovery of the sums claimed as enforcement fees. They simply do not fall within the scope of the order.
What are the wider implications for construction practitioners in the DIFC?
This decision serves as a stern warning regarding the necessity of strict compliance with RDC cost-reporting requirements. Practitioners must ensure that statements of costs are granular, signed, and strictly limited to the scope of the underlying order. Failure to provide a detailed breakdown of hours and fee-earner seniority will lead to significant reductions in recoverable costs, regardless of the actual fees agreed upon between the client and the firm.
The deep editorial analysis of this case is at: Architeriors v Emirates National Investment [2024] DIFC TCD 001: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Construction Litigation.
Where can I read the full judgment in Architeriors Interior Design v Emirates National Investment Co [2025] DIFC TCD 001?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-0012024-architeriors-interior-design-llc-v-emirates-national-investment-co-llc-4 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-001-2024_20251203.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external precedents cited in this specific order. |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC): RDC 38.30, RDC 38.33, RDC 38.34, RDC 38.35, RDC 38.36, RDC 38.37