Claim No: CFI 007/2008
THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
|andORION HOLDING OVERSEAS LIMITED
ORDER OF CHIEF JUSTICE SIR ANTHONY EVANS
1. Application 083/2009 is defective in form because there is no brief statement of the grounds of appeal as required in Part A. Instead, the attached Appeal Notice to which reference is made is a lengthy (20 page) and detailed document which is mostly concerned with the Registrar’s Assessment of Costs on 3 and 23 November 2009, not with the Applicant’s grounds for challenging the Order made by H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi on 28 October 2009.
2. The Applicant also seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order.
3. I am not concerned with any question of appealing against the Registrar’s Assessment and Orders, and I understand that the Applicant has in fact proceeded with such an appeal since making this Application.
4. H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order directed the Registrar to proceed with the Detailed Costs Assessment, for the period when the Applicant was a litigant in person, using a rate for time spent by the Applicant, as Claimant, of AED 50 per hour.
5. The Applicant contends that the figure should be AED 150 per hour on the grounds set out in paragraph 4.2 of the Appeal Notice. She refers in particular to the SCCO Guide 2006 Section 22 which states that the rate allowed (in England and Wales) is £9.25 followed by “(£25 per hour in the Employment Appeal Tribunal)”. She contends that the Guide “provides a rate of AED 150 per hour as the appropriate rate to apply in employment cases particularly in the higher courts and appeal courts ” (para.4.2( c )).
6. As a matter of construction, the Guide does not use the words which the Applicant suggests that it does, nor do the words it uses mean what she says they do. If and to the extent that the Applicant contends that H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi exercised his discretion wrongly in fixing the rate at AED 50 per hour, there are no grounds for holding that he did so.
7. Permission to appeal against his Order is therefore refused. The application for an extension of time is also refused.
8. I consider that the application is totally without merit and pursuant to RDC Part 44.16 I ORDER that the Applicant may not request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing.
Date of Issue: 25 February 2010