February 24, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 054/2024
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
WINCORE ADVISORY GROUP DMCC
Claimant
and
(1) JPV MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY
(2) JAI PRAKASH NARAINE
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI
UPON the Part 7 Claim filed on 29 July 2024 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the Trial held on 3 and 4 September 2025 before H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani with counsel for the Claimant and counsel for the Defendants in attendance (the “Trial”)
AND UPON the Judgment of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 16 October 2025 in favour of the Claimant (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s costs submissions dated 2 September 2025, filed pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Judgment
AND PURSUANT TO Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant is awarded its costs to the quantum of AED 135,000.
2. Costs shall be paid within 14 days from the date of issue of this Order.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 24 February 2026
At: 1pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Judgment, the Claimant filed its submissions on costs under Rule 38.36 of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) dated 1 September 2025.
2. The Claimant’s costs, including 5% VAT, total AED 217,374.01. Fees were charged on a fixed basis, and can be broken down into three groups:
(a) Legal fees of AED 84,000 for the instruction of Marwan Mohamed Advocates and Ammar Almulla Advocates, Horizons and Co Law Firm and Sean Yates (Counsel);
(b) Disbursements totalling AED 48,872.88 for the Court claim fee and Application filing fee; and
(c) Contingency fees payable on the basis that the Claimant is successful at AED 84,501.13 for Marwan Mohamed Advocates and Ammar Almulla Advocates and Sean Yates (Counsel).
3. Although paragraph 3 of the Judgment directed both parties to file submissions on costs, the Defendant has filed no submissions in response. The Claimant’s application for costs is therefore unopposed. Notwithstanding that position, the Court must independently assess whether the costs sought are reasonable and proportionate.
4. As the costs claimed are advanced on a fixed fee basis and no time records have been provided, it is not possible to undertake a comparative assessment by reference to the guidance in the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023. The Court will therefore assess recoverability by reference to the relevant considerations set out in RDC 38.23.
5. In assessing proportionality, I note that this was a relatively short and straightforward matter. Two applications were filed during the proceedings, both by the Claimant, and the total hearing time before a Judge was approximately 8 hours, inclusive of the Case Management Conference, Pre-Trial Review and Trial.
6. While the Claimant succeeded overall, it did not succeed on all material aspects of its case. The final judgment sum awarded was materially less than that sought: the commission arrears claim was dismissed and the sums awarded for outstanding invoices were reduced from those claimed. I also take into account the parties’ pre-action conduct, including the limited efforts made to narrow or resolve the dispute prior to commencement. In these circumstances, the Claimant’s recoverable costs should reflect its partial, rather than complete, success.
7. Having regard to the matters set out above, and applying the considerations in RDC 38.23, I am satisfied that it is fair and proportionate to award the Claimant costs in the sum of AED 135,000. This figure reflects the nature and scope of the proceedings, the Claimant’s degree of success, and the absence of detailed time-based records supporting the full amount sought. Pursuant to RDC 38.40, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs in that sum within 14 days of the date of this Order.
