(a) The Claimant originally pleaded the matter as an employment law claim for remuneration. On that basis, and by reference to Article 22 of the DIFC Employment Law, the claim would have been time-barred, having been filed 13 days late;

(b) The Claimant had, however, amended its case so as to assert that this was not an employment law case;

(c) The Defendant accepted that the arguments made in this case were materially the same as those in case CFI-025-2025;

(d) The Court, accepted that the correct characterisation of the Claim is contractual, arising under the Grant Agreement and/or the Share Incentive Plan for the reasons set out in the judgment in CFI-025-2025;

(e) Under DIFC law (or English law, which may also apply given the conflicting governing law clauses), the relevant limitation period is six years. It was therefore unnecessary for the Court to determine definitively which law applies, as the Claim is within time under both.

(f) The Application to contest jurisdiction was accordingly dismissed.

(g) In this case, the Claimant has successfully defeated the Claim. The attempt to deny jurisdiction on the Claim has not changed its case.

(h) The Defendant asserts that it put forward arguments in good faith, I don't doubt that. However, that is not relevant to the incidence of costs. It put forward those arguments and it lost, and in principle the Claimant is entitled to the costs.

(i) So far as the quantum is concerned, the overall quantum is AED 48,300. The costs in general seem to be reasonable to me.

(j) It is ordered that the Defendant pay the sum of AED 47,000 to the Claimant, which I assess as being the appropriate figure for costs.