Skip to Content

Arabtec Construction LLC v Ultra Fuji International LLC [2007] DIFC CFI 004

Arabtec Construction LLC v Ultra Fuji International LLC [2007] DIFC CFI 004

March 10, 2009

image_pdfimage_print

Claim No CFI 004/2007

THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Between

ARABTEC CONSTRUCTION LLC

Claimant/Part 20 Defendant

and

ULTRA FUJI INTERNATIONAL LLC

Defendant/Part 20 Claimant


JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE SIR JOHN CHADWICK ON CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR INDEMNITY COSTS ORDER


I am not persuaded that this is a case in which an Order for the assessment of the Claimant’s costs on an indemnity basis should be made. In reaching that conclusion I have taken account of the points made in the letter of 10 February 2009 from Clyde & Co LLP. Although there is force in those points I am satisfied:

 (a) That, to the extent that additional costs were occasioned by the Defendant’s failure to take any part in the proceedings between April and August 2008, the Claimant is sufficiently compensated by the Order for costs made on 21 August 2008;
(b) That the Claimant was not, in the event, disadvantaged by the Defendant’s failure to make full disclosure of documents in response to the Order of 21 August 2008;
(c) That it would be disproportionate to expend further time in seeking to determine whether the Defendant’s failure to comply with that Order was contumacious; and
(d) That, to the extent that the length of the trial was prolonged by the conduct of the Defendant’s case, the Claimant is sufficiently compensated by an Order that the Defendant pay the whole costs of the trial on the standard basis.

Nevertheless, I direct that, in assessing the costs of the trial on the standard basis:

(a) Regard be had to the fact that any additional costs incurred by the Claimant in connection with the need for an adjourned hearing in December 2008 were attributable to the manner in which the Defendant chose to advance its case during the hearing in November 2008; and
(b) The reasonable travel and accommodation costs of the Claimant’s expert witness (Mr Lindsey) and of the Bureau Veritas employee (Mr Madi) be allowed on the grounds that the attendance of those witnesses was made necessary by the Defendant’s refusal to agree to their respective written reports being admitted as evidence without formal proof.

 

Justice Sir John Chadwick
Dated: 10 March 2009
At 4pm

X

Privacy Policy

The Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DRA's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DRA in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DRA and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DRA is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DRA and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DRA and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DRA and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DRA’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.