Claim No: CFI 070/2018

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

IDBI BANK LIMITED

Claimant

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

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”)

AND UPON the Order of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 23 March 2022 (the “Sanctions Order”)

AND UPON the Sixth Defendant’s Application No. CFI-070-2018/11 dated 30 December 2024, seeking to strike out the Claim against the Sixth Defendant and to set aside the Sanctions Order against the Sixth Defendant (the “Set Aside Application”)

AND UPON the Sixth Defendant’s Application No. CFI-070-2018/12 dated 19 March 2025, seeking relief from the sanctions imposed in the Sanctions Order against the Sixth Defendant (the “Relief from Sanctions Application”)

AND UPON hearing the Claimant’s representative and the authorised representative of the Sixth Defendant at an Application Hearing before H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani on 8 July 2025 (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 22 January 2026 setting aside the Sanctions Order to the extent that it is operative against the Sixth Defendant and awarding costs to the Sixth Defendant for the Set Aside Application and Relief from Sanctions Application only (the “Order”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant shall pay 50% of the Sixth Defendant’s sought costs, being AED 188,131.85.

2. The Claimant shall pay the Sixth Defendant’s costs within 14 days from the date of this Order pursuant to Rule 38.40 of the DIFC Court Rules.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 25 March 2026
At: 12pm

1. Following the issuance of the Order, in particular paragraph 3 of the summary, the Sixth Defendant (hence, ‘Sixth Defendant’) filed his costs submissions dated 29 January 2026, with the Claimant responding in opposition on 3 February 2026.

2. The Sixth Defendant seeks costs to the quantum of AED 376,263.70, covering both the Set Aside Application and Relief from Sanctions Application (hence, “Applications”), for works done by five practitioners ranging from 2 to 21 years’ experience. In comparison to the guidance provided by the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023, the hourly fees charged by the aforementioned practitioners are below the expected range.

3. In summary, the Claimant’s opposition is that the costs sought are incompatible with Rules 38.18 and 38.21(1) of Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), as, in consideration of all circumstances relating to the Applications, costs sought are disproportionately excessive in comparison to the matters in issue.

4. The Claimant rejects the Sixth Defendant's use of five practitioners over for two Applications, particularly as only two fee earners attended the Hearing and there was no complexity or logistical necessity at the Hearing or in the bundle that would justify costs for five practitioners. Further, the most senior practitioners failed to properly delegate tasks to more junior practitioners, artificially increasing costs, without proper justification. The Sixth Defendant did not produce a significantly higher volume of work; the Sixth Defendant filed two witness statements comprising a total of 23 pages, whereas the Claimant filed two witness statements totalling 21 pages, yet the Claimant’s costs as submitted on 7 July 2025 only amount to AED 150,393.70.

5. Further, the Sixth Defendant relies on the length of proceedings prior to the Hearing and the contextual matters important for the practitioners to understand in order to explain some of the additional AED 225,870 sought in comparison to the Claimant. However, the Order, at paragraph 3, was clear in that costs were only awarded for the Applications. Therefore, the Court ought to only consider what was reasonably practicable for the Applications in isolation. Finally, the Claimant suggests that AED 150,000 is a proportionate recoverable costs quantum.

6. I concur with the Claimant’s observations of the Sixth Defendant’s sought costs. My Order was clear in limiting costs to the Applications only, and therefore I will only consider what is reasonable for costs incurred for what are relatively straightforward applications that do not carry particular legal complexity necessary for five practitioners. Further, as recognised at paragraph 2 of the reasons of the Order, “The Applications are materially similar. The Relief from Sanctions Application essentially acts to correct the procedural issues in the Set Aside Application”. I do not find that the Claimant ought to be liable for costs unnecessarily incurred for the Sixth Defendant’s mistake.

7. I cannot identify a justifiable reason as to why the Sixth Defendant’s costs vastly exceed the Claimant’s costs dated 7 July 2025. No explanation is given as to why five practitioners, with the majority of the works done by the most senior practitioners, were needed by the Sixth Defendant for the Applications- logically, there should not have been a procedural filing mistake in this instance- when the Claimant was able to engage in the Hearing with less than half of the costs incurred by comparison.

8. When taking into account all circumstances, in my view, half of the sought costs are proportionate to be awarded to the Sixth Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant shall pay the Defendant AED 188,131.85 in costs for the Applications.