July 22, 2026 Court of First Instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 036/2025
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
STEPHAN KARL MORGENSTERN
Claimant
and
SAIF SULTAN AL MEHRZI LAWYER & LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART
UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 20 May 2026 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 10 June 2026 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “PTA Application”) and a stay of enforcement of the Judgment pursuant to Rule 44.4 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) (the “Stay Application”, together the “Application”)
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 2 July 2026 (the “2 July Order”) dismissing the Application
AND UPON the Claimant’s cost submissions in respect of responding to the Application dated 9 July 2026
AND UPON the Defendant’s written submissions in response to the Claimant’s costs submissions in respect of the Application dated 14 July 2026
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s costs of responding to the Application are assessed on an indemnity basis in the sum of AED 21,899.97.
2. The Defendant shall pay the sum of AED 21,899.97 to the Claimant within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 22 July 2026
At: 1pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is the determination and assessment of costs pursuant to the 2 July Order whereby the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal and stay of the Judgment was dismissed for the reasons given.
2. In its submissions dated 9 July the Claimant seeks a total of AED 27,600.96 for the reasons set out. He seeks assessment on an indemnity basis.
3. In the Defendant’s submissions dated 14 July 2026, the Defendant seeks to resist assessment on an indemnity basis and also asserts:
(a) That the costs claimed are too high; and
(b) That the costs of the 11 May hearing transcript should not be recoverable as they were incurred prior to the application for permission to appeal.
4. I consider that the Claimant’s costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis. I accept that costs should only be assessed on such a basis where the circumstances take a case out of the norm but I consider that the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal and a stay falls well within the relevant criteria. In particular as set out in the 2 July Order:
(a) It may well have been appropriate for me to have simply referred the application to the Court of Appeal, were it not for the grounds upon which the application was brought;
(b) I gave reasons for dismissing the application in case such reasons were of assistance to the Court of Appeal in considering a renewed application for permission; and
(c) I stated that the application was brought on a fundamentally false basis for the reasons set out and that the application appeared to bear the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
5. The Defendant’s submissions do not deal in any substantive way with the reasoning in the 2 July Order.
6. So far as the quantum of costs are concerned:
(a) I consider the same to be reasonable and, indeed, modest given the issues dealt with;
(b) The one deduction which I consider appropriate is that in respect of the 11 May 2026 transcript costs;
(c) Although that transcript was of assistance, it appears that the cost of obtaining it was unrelated to the application for permission to appeal and stay; and
(d) Accordingly, I assess the costs in the sum claimed less the amount in respect of the costs of obtaining the transcript.
