This order provides a definitive assessment of legal costs following the dismissal of a renewed application for permission to appeal in a marine insurance dispute, emphasizing the Court's duty to scrutinize professional time claims.
What was the total amount of costs sought by Al Buhaira National Insurance Company in the renewed permission to appeal application against Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi?
The dispute arises from a protracted insurance claim involving Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi and Al Buhaira National Insurance Company. Following the dismissal of the Claimant’s Renewed Permission to Appeal Application on 6 January 2026, the Respondent sought to recover its legal costs incurred during that specific phase of the litigation. The Respondent submitted a statement of costs totaling AED 100,862.38.
As noted in the Court’s order:
In accordance with the Orders made on 6 January 2026 the Defendant has provided a statement of the costs it seeks in respect of the unsuccessful Renewed Permission Application.
While the Claimant did not file submissions in opposition to this figure, the Court maintained its supervisory role to ensure the quantum was proportionate and reasonable.
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in TCD 002/2024 within the Technology and Construction Division?
The costs assessment was conducted by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin. The order was issued on 26 February 2026, following the earlier dismissal of the Claimant's Renewed Permission to Appeal Application by the same judge on 6 January 2026. The matter falls under the Technology and Construction Division (TCD) of the DIFC Courts, which has handled the various stages of this insurance litigation, including the substantive judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart on 28 August 2025.
How did the legal team for Al Buhaira National Insurance Company justify the AED 100,862.38 claim, and why did the Court find this amount excessive?
The Respondent’s legal team justified the claim by detailing the hourly rates of the practitioners involved, which the Court acknowledged were within the ranges permitted by the Registrar’s Direction. However, the primary point of contention was the volume of hours billed. The Respondent claimed 50 hours of professional time spent preparing for the Renewed Permission Application.
The Court scrutinized this figure, noting:
However, the amount claimed derives from 50 hours of professional time said to have been spent on the matter by the legal team representing the Defendant.
The Court concluded that this was disproportionate because the renewed application largely mirrored the arguments already presented during the initial application for permission to appeal.
What was the specific legal question regarding the Court's duty to assess costs when the opposing party remains silent?
The Court had to determine whether it was obligated to independently assess the reasonableness of a costs claim even when the respondent to the costs application (the Claimant) failed to provide any submissions in opposition. The legal issue centered on whether the Court could or should intervene in the absence of an adversarial challenge to the bill of costs.
The Court clarified its position:
However, it remains necessary for the Court to form its own view in respect of the appropriateness of the quantum of costs claimed.
This established that the Court’s duty to ensure the fairness and proportionality of costs is not contingent upon the participation of the opposing party.
How did H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin apply the principle of proportionality to the 50-hour claim?
The Chief Justice applied a test of necessity and efficiency. He observed that the skeleton argument provided by the Respondent in response to the Renewed Permission Application was largely repetitive of the work already performed for the initial application, with only a limited addition regarding the application to adduce new evidence.
The Court’s reasoning was as follows:
The reasonableness of those hours must be assessed in a context in which the Renewed Permission Application raised essentially the same grounds as the initial application for permission, so that the issues had already been addressed in the skeleton provided on behalf of the Defendant in response to the initial application.
Consequently, the Court found that the workload claimed did not reflect the actual complexity of the task.
Which specific factors did the Court cite regarding the duplication of work in the skeleton arguments?
The Court highlighted that the work performed by the Respondent’s legal team was largely redundant. The Court noted:
The skeleton provided in response to the Renewed Permission Application covered essentially the same ground as the skeleton provided in response to the initial application, augmented by a section dealing with the application to adduce new evidence.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the lack of necessity for the extensive hours claimed:
It is not apparent that any significant work other than the preparation of the skeleton in response to the Renewed Permission Application would have been required.
This assessment directly informed the reduction of the final award.
What authorities and procedural rules guided the Court's assessment of the hourly rates and total costs?
The Court relied on the Registrar's Direction concerning hourly rates for legal practitioners in the DIFC. While the Court found that the specific hourly rates charged by the Respondent’s legal team were compliant with these guidelines, the total quantum was adjusted based on the Court's inherent power to assess costs under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The assessment was also informed by the procedural history of the case, specifically the previous orders dated 6 January 2026, which set the framework for the costs submission.
What was the final disposition of the costs application and the total amount awarded to Al Buhaira National Insurance Company?
The Court ultimately reduced the claim from the requested AED 100,862.38 to a fixed sum of AED 70,000. This reduction reflected the Court's determination that the 50 hours of professional time claimed were excessive for the work performed.
The final order stated:
The Defendant's costs of the Renewed Permission Application are assessed in the amount of AED 70,000.
This amount was deemed a fair and reasonable reflection of the work required for the Renewed Permission Application.
What are the wider implications for practitioners regarding the submission of costs statements in the DIFC Courts?
This ruling serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will actively scrutinize costs claims, even in the absence of opposition from the paying party. Practitioners must ensure that the hours claimed are strictly necessary and proportionate to the task at hand. Specifically, when an application repeats arguments previously ventilated before the Court, practitioners should anticipate that the Court will apply a rigorous standard of review to the time billed. This case reinforces the necessity of detailed, transparent, and justifiable time-recording practices to avoid judicial intervention and reduction of costs.
Where can I read the full judgment in AHMED MOHAMED EID AL YAHAD AL ZAABI v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2026] DIFC TCD 002?
The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-0022024-ahmed-mohamed-eid-al-yahad-al-zaabi-v-al-buhaira-national-insurance-company-3 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/DIFC_TCD-002-2024_20260226.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| AHMED MOHAMED EID AL YAHAD AL ZAABI v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY | [2025] DIFC TCD 002 | Substantive judgment and procedural history |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Registrar's Direction regarding hourly rates