Claim No: CFI 070/2018

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

IBDI BANK LIMITED

Claimant/Applicant

and

(1) MABANI DELMA GENERAL CONTRACTING CO LLC
(2) HELIOPOLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC
(3) DELMA ENGINEERING PROJECTS COMPANY LLC
(4) DELMA EMIRATES DIESEL
(5) DELMA EMIRATES GENERAL TRANSPORT
(6) AHMED KHALIL KHALED ALMERAIKHI
(7) SHERIFA AHMED KHALIL KHALED ALMERAIKHI
(8) MARIAM AHMED KHALED ALMERAIKHI

Defendants/Respondents

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI

UPON the Claimant’s Amended Claim Form dated 16 October 2018 (the “Claim”)

UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 23 March 2022 (the “Sanctions Order”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 22 January 2026, by which relief from sanctions imposed by the Sanctions Order was granted to the Sixth Defendant to the extent that the Sanctions Order operated against him (the “January Order”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 21 May 2026, whereby the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal dated 12 February 2026 (the “February PTA Application”) was dismissed, the Claimant’s Application No. CFI- 070-2018/13 dated 9 April 2026 seeking a stay of the Costs Order dated 25 March 2026 (the “Stay Application”) was dismissed, and the costs of the February PTA Application and the Stay Application were awarded to the Sixth Defendant on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Court following the parties’ submissions on costs (the “May Order”)

AND UPON the Sixth Defendant’s Statement of Costs and written submissions on costs dated 4 June 2026 (the “Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s submissions on costs dated 9 June 2026

AND UPON review of the parties’ submissions and the materials on the Court file

AND PURSUANT TO Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant shall pay the Sixth Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the February PTA Application and the Stay Application, assessed on the standard basis in the sum of USD 20,000, exclusive of value added tax.

2. The Claimant shall pay value added tax on the assessed costs in the sum of USD 1,000, insofar as such tax is properly chargeable and recoverable.

3. Pursuant to RDC 38.40, the Claimant shall pay the total sum of USD 21,000 to the Sixth Defendant within 14 days of the date of issue of this Order.

4. Interest shall accrue on any unpaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the period for payment until payment in full.

Issued By:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 19 June 2026
At: 11am

1. This Order concerns the assessment of the Sixth Defendant’s costs arising from the May Order.

2. By the May Order, the Court dismissed the February PTA Application and the Stay Application. The Court further ordered that the costs of both applications be awarded to the Sixth Defendant on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Court following the parties’ submissions on costs.

3. The present issue is one of quantum only. The Sixth Defendant’s entitlement to costs has already been determined. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to revisit the merits of the February PTA Application, the Stay Application, or the conclusions reached in the May Order.

4. The Court has reviewed the Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials, the Claimant’s submissions on costs dated 9 June 2026, and the materials on the Court file.

5. The Sixth Defendant seeks immediate assessment of his costs in the sum of USD 27,170.83, exclusive of value added tax. He also seeks value added tax at 5%, in the sum of USD 1,358.54, producing a total claimed amount of USD 28,529.37. The Sixth Defendant further seeks payment within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order and interest at 9% per annum thereafter if the assessed costs remain unpaid.

6. The Sixth Defendant submits that he was wholly successful in resisting both applications. He relies on the dismissal of the February PTA Application in its entirety, the rejection of the three grounds advanced by the Claimant, and the consequential dismissal of the Stay Application.

7. The Sixth Defendant further submits that the costs claimed were reasonably and proportionately incurred. It is said that the work required review of the February PTA Application, the Stay Application, the January Order, the procedural history, the documentary record, the Claimant’s submissions and authorities, and the preparation of submissions and such evidence as was filed in answer. The Sixth Defendant also submits that the applications were significant, because they challenged an order restoring his ability to defend the Claim.

8. The Claimant accepts that the assessment is to be conducted on the standard basis. It submits, however, that the amount claimed is disproportionate having regard to the nature and scope of the work reasonably required.

9. The Claimant’s objections are directed principally at two matters. First, it submits that the involvement of two partner-level fee earners was unnecessary and disproportionate. The Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials identify Ms Asha Bejoy, Managing Partner, with 21 years’ experience, at USD 1,000 per hour, and Mr Jose Joseph, Associate Partner, with 12 years’ experience, at USD 750 per hour. The Claimant submits that only one supervising partner was reasonably required and invites the Court to reduce partner- level costs by 50%, or approximately USD 5,500.

10. Secondly, the Claimant submits that the time recorded by junior associates for work on documents was excessive. The Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials record 49 hours by Mr Jerome Jose, Junior Associate, and 15 hours and 20 minutes by Mr Aeron Abraham Thomas, Junior Associate, amounting together to 64 hours and 20 minutes at a cost of USD 16,083.33. The Claimant submits that this was disproportionate for a skeleton argument in opposition to the February PTA Application and a short response to the Stay Application, neither of which involved oral advocacy. It invites the Court to reduce the recoverable junior associate document time to approximately USD 8,000.

11. I begin with the applicable principles. Under RDC 38.6, the Court has discretion as to whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid. Under RDC 38.7, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party, although the Court may make a different order.

12. The May Order has already determined that the Sixth Defendant is entitled to his costs on the standard basis. On that basis of assessment, and under RDC 38.18, the Court will allow only costs which are reasonable and proportionate to the matters in issue. Any doubt as to whether costs were reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount, or proportionate in amount must be resolved in favour of the paying party.

13. I accept that the Sixth Defendant was entitled to meet the February PTA Application and the Stay Application properly. The February PTA Application was not confined to a short or purely technical point. It advanced three grounds, including challenges to the Court’s treatment of the Abu Dhabi criminal judgment and expert material, the application of the principles governing relief from sanctions, and the procedural treatment of the Sixth Defendant’s two earlier applications. The Stay Application also required a response, although its determination was necessarily affected by the outcome of the February PTA Application.

14. I also accept that the applications were of real significance to the Sixth Defendant. The February PTA Application challenged the January Order, by which relief from sanctions had been granted to the extent that the Sanctions Order operated against him. The consequences of the Claimant succeeding would have been material. It was therefore reasonable for the Sixth Defendant to incur costs in preparing a proper response.

15. It does not follow, however, that the whole of the sum claimed is recoverable on the standard basis. The Court must distinguish between costs which may have been incurred as between solicitor and client and costs which it is reasonable and proportionate to require the paying party to bear. That distinction is particularly important where the costs arise from interlocutory applications determined on the papers.

16. I do not accept that the involvement of more than one senior fee earner is, in itself, impermissible. A receiving party is entitled to organise its legal team as it considers appropriate. The question for the Court is a narrower one: whether the cost of that deployment should be borne by the paying party on the standard basis.

17. In my judgment, there is force in the Claimant’s submission that the partner-level time claimed is high for the work reasonably required. Some senior supervision was plainly justified. However, the Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials record both managing partner and associate partner involvement, including 2 hours of document work by Ms Bejoy and 9 hours and 15 minutes of document work by Mr Joseph, in addition to attendance time. I am not satisfied that the full extent of that partner-level time was proportionate, particularly where substantial junior associate time was also recorded for work on documents.

18. I also accept, in part, the Claimant’s submission concerning junior associate time. The applications required careful engagement with the procedural history and the Court’s earlier orders. However, 64 hours and 20 minutes of junior associate document time is substantial for the applications in question. Neither application involved oral evidence or oral advocacy. Nor do the Sixth Defendant’s Costs Materials provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for the division of work between the two junior associates or for the full amount of time claimed.

19. That said, I do not accept the Claimant’s submission to the extent that it treats the applications as simple or routine. The February PTA Application was fact-sensitive. It required engagement with the January Order, the procedural background, and the issues raised by the Claimant. The Sixth Defendant was not required to respond in a merely summary fashion.

20. Viewed in the round, I am not satisfied that the total claimed sum of USD 27,170.83, exclusive of value added tax, is proportionate to the matters in issue. A reduction is required to reflect the level of senior fee earner involvement and the amount of junior associate document time claimed. The appropriate course is to make a broad assessment of the reasonable and proportionate costs recoverable on the standard basis, taking into account the nature of the applications, the work reasonably required, the level of fee earners deployed, the absence of an oral hearing, and the requirement that doubt be resolved in favour of the paying party.

21. In my judgment, the reasonable and proportionate sum recoverable by the Sixth Defendant is USD 20,000, exclusive of value added tax.

22. The Sixth Defendant seeks value added tax at 5% on the assessed costs. The Claimant has not advanced a separate objection to value added tax as such. I am satisfied that value added tax should be allowed on the assessed amount insofar as it is properly chargeable and recoverable. On the assessed sum of USD 20,000, value added tax is USD 1,000.

23. I am also satisfied that payment should be made within 14 days of the date of issue of this Order. That period is consistent with RDC 38.40 and is appropriate where entitlement has already been determined and the present assessment concerns quantum only.

24. The Sixth Defendant seeks interest on any unpaid assessed costs from the expiry of the period for payment. I accept that interest should accrue from the expiry of the 14-day period until payment in full. In the absence of any reason to order otherwise, the applicable rate shall be 9% per annum.

25. For those reasons, the Claimant shall pay the Sixth Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the February PTA Application and the Stay Application, assessed on the standard basis in the sum of USD 20,000, together with value added tax in the sum of USD 1,000, within 14 days of the date of issue of this Order. Interest shall accrue on any unpaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of that period until payment in full.