The DIFC Court of First Instance provides a definitive ruling on the standards for immediate costs assessment, emphasizing the necessity of staffing proportionality and the finality of initial costs schedules in the Technology and Construction Division.
What was the total amount of costs claimed by Al Buhaira National Insurance Company in the action against Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi?
The dispute originated from a Part 7 claim filed by Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi against Al Buhaira National Insurance Company. Following the dismissal of the Claimant’s action and the subsequent refusal of permission to appeal, the Defendant sought to recover its legal costs. The Defendant initially submitted a schedule of costs for the main action, which was later subject to an attempted revision.
The Defendant duly produced a schedule of costs dated 4 September 2025 seeking total costs of AED 1,046,929.15.
The litigation involved significant expert witness involvement and extensive legal representation. The total stakes for the costs assessment phase were substantial, reflecting the complexity of the underlying marine insurance dispute. For further context on the progression of this litigation, see AHMED MOHAMED EID AL YAHAD AL ZAABI v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2025] DIFC TCD 002 — Marine insurance contract repudiation and consumer status (28 August 2025).
Which judge presided over the costs assessment in TCD 002/2024?
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC presided over the costs assessment in the Technology and Construction Division. The order was issued on 31 March 2026, following a series of procedural steps including the initial judgment on 27 August 2025 and the subsequent refusal of the permission to appeal application on 8 October 2025.
How did the Defendant attempt to amend its costs claim after the initial filing in Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi v Al Buhaira National Insurance Company?
The Defendant sought to increase its claim for costs by introducing an omitted expert witness invoice shortly after the initial schedule was filed. This attempt to revise the total claim was met with scrutiny by the Court regarding the procedural efficiency of the immediate assessment process.
On 31 October 2025, the Defendant sought to issue a revised statement of costs of the Action in the total sum of AED 1,071,055.96 on the basis that its initial statement had omitted an invoice in the sum of AED 25,333.15 from an expert witness.
The Claimant did not file any response to the Defendant’s statements of costs, leaving the Court to exercise its discretion in determining the reasonableness and proportionality of the sums sought without the benefit of adversarial submissions on specific line items.
What was the primary legal question regarding the amendment of the costs schedule in TCD 002/2024?
The Court had to determine whether it was procedurally appropriate to permit the Defendant to amend its costs schedule to include an expert witness invoice that had been omitted from the original filing. The core issue was whether the principles of "immediate assessment"—which prioritize speed and the avoidance of lengthy detailed assessment processes—should be compromised to accommodate a late-stage amendment by the prevailing party.
How did Justice Roger Stewart KC apply the doctrine of proportionality to the Defendant's legal team structure?
Justice Stewart KC scrutinized the composition of the Defendant's legal team, noting that the lack of junior resources resulted in an over-reliance on senior fee earners at high hourly rates. While the Court acknowledged that the rates themselves were generally reasonable, it held that the failure to delegate work to more junior staff rendered the total costs disproportionate.
I consider it should have been possible to have a proportion of the work carried out by more junior staff at a lower rate.
The Court emphasized that even where a party does not challenge specific items, the Court maintains an independent duty to ensure that the costs awarded are reasonable and proportional to the work performed.
What specific DIFC rules and principles governed the Court’s refusal to allow the addition of the omitted expert invoice?
The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the procedural objectives of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding costs. Justice Stewart KC identified that the immediate assessment process is designed to be a "quick assessment" to avoid the "lengthy process of detailed assessment." By refusing the amendment, the Court upheld the principle that parties must be diligent in their initial costs filings.
In relation to the first issue, I do not consider that it is appropriate to permit the Defendant to add the omitted sum.
The Court further noted that the omission was not justified by any "good reason," as the existence of the invoice should have been apparent to the Defendant at the time of the initial filing.
How did the Court address the hourly rates charged by the Defendant's legal team?
The Court examined the billing structure, noting that the entire legal team was charged at a high hourly rate, with the exception of one individual.
All of the Defendant’s legal team are charged at AED 1850 per hour except for Mr Ahmed who was charged at AED 1967 per hour.
Because the team lacked junior resources, the Court determined that the total costs were inflated. This finding serves as a warning to practitioners that the Court will not automatically rubber-stamp high hourly rates if the staffing model does not reflect a reasonable distribution of work between senior and junior fee earners.
What was the final disposition regarding the monetary relief awarded to Al Buhaira National Insurance Company?
The Court assessed the costs of the Action at AED 900,000 and the costs of opposing the Permission to Appeal Application at AED 40,000. These amounts were significantly lower than the total sums requested by the Defendant.
In relation to the costs of the Action, I consider that the above matter leads to a reduction so that the total assessed costs will be AED 900,000.
In relation to the costs of the Permission to Appeal Application, I consider that only a very modest reduction is required so that the costs are assessed at AED 40,000.
The Claimant was ordered to pay these sums within 14 days of the date of the order. For the procedural history leading to this assessment, see AHMED MOHAMED EID AL YAHAD AL ZAABI v AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY [2025] DIFC TCD 002 — Refusal of permission to appeal following failed insurance claim (08 October 2025).
What are the wider implications for practitioners regarding costs submissions in the DIFC?
This order reinforces the Court's expectation for timely and accurate costs submissions. Practitioners must ensure that all invoices are captured in the initial schedule, as the Court is unlikely to permit amendments that delay the immediate assessment process. Furthermore, the case highlights that the Court will actively police the proportionality of legal teams, and firms should ensure that their staffing models include junior resources to avoid reductions in assessed 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 judgment 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-4 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/technology-and-construction-division/tcd-0022024-ahmed-mohamed-eid-al-yahad-al-zaabi-v-al-buhaira-national-insurance-company-4.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)
- Part 7 Claim Form (DIFC)