Claim No: CFI 072/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

KRYSTAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LLC

Claimant

and

ASAS CAPITAL LTD

Defendant

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

UPON the Part 7 Claim Form filed on 10 October 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendant filing Application No. CFI-072-2024/1 dated 14 November 2024 seeking to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Jurisdiction Application”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 6 February 2025 determining that the DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the Claim and ordering the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of the Jurisdiction Application (the “Order”)

AND UPON review of the Claimant’s costs Submissions filed on 11 and 12 February 2025

AND UPON review of the Defendant's costs Submissions filed on 11 February 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERD THAT the Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs to the amount of AED 92,700 within 14 days from the date of this Order.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 July 2025
At: 1pm

1. In the Order of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 6 February 2025, it was determined that Application No. CFI-072-2024/1 dated 14 November 2024 filed by the Defendant contesting the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Jurisdiction Application”) was accepted, and costs of the Jurisdiction Application were awarded in favour of the Defendant.

2. In its written costs submissions, the Defendant’s total costs are as presented below:

3. As pleaded, Avichal Prasad spent one hour on preliminary examination of the Claim, conference calls with the Defendant, drafting and filing the acknowledgment of service. Sarthak Shamra spent four and a half hours on the same.

4. On the Jurisdiction Application up to the Hearing, Avichal Prasad has billed seven hours of work, and Sarthak Sharma has billed eleven hours of work.

5. On the Hearing itself, including bundle preparation, Avichal Prasad has billed three hours of work, and Sarthak Sharma has billed three and a half hours of work.

6. The additional costs listed in row three are pleaded summarily; no evidence, including receipts or reference to exhibits, documents or bundle content has been presented to show the breakdown of the AED 5,000 claimed or the justification for spending this amount.

7. As ordered, the Claimant also filed its costs submissions, summarised as:

8. In total, the Claimant’s representatives billed 48 hours of work; the Defendant’s representatives billed 30 hours. The scope of work carried out, as described in the respective costs submissions, is materially similar.

9. The Claimant contests to paying the full amount of lawyer fees as submitted by the Defendant, but provides no reason to justify a waiver to the Court. It is simply stated that:

“In view of the above, the Claimant requests to waive off the Lawyer Fees and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Defendant, keeping in mind the Claimant capacity at the hearing.”

10. The Claimant also fails to explain what is meant by “Claimant capacity”; though this is the only reference to anything that could amount to the natural meaning of “capacity” is at paragraph 5.3, where it is stated that Sarah AlBaqishi and Khadija Rangwala were present at the Hearing, but this still fails to reasonably justify the contest to payment of the Defendant’s legal costs.

11. Additionally, no submissions are made to give reason for the Court to waive the additional expenses listed at row three of the Defendant’s costs.

12. In my view, the Defendant’s legal costs are reasonable. Avichal Prasad, the Managing Partner of the firm, has 17 years of experience and charges AED 3,200/hour. Sarthak Shamra has 7 years of experience and charges AED 2,500/hour. A materially similar number of hours was spent on the defence by each counsel individually, amounting to fewer hours than the Claimant’s counsel. As no legitimate submission has been made by the Claimant opposing the hours spent, hours billed or hourly fees charged, and there is no glaring discrepancy or clear abuse of process that would trigger the Court to engage in its own discretion to discredit the costs claimed, and that the charged hourly rates are in line with the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023, I will award the Defendant its full legal fees as costs.

13. On the matter of the additional costs amounting to AED 5,000, while no legitimate submissions were made by the Claimant contesting these costs, I concede that it would be unreasonable to permit the Defendant to recover all of the additional costs claimed as no evidence has been provided to prove that AED 5,000 was spent in pursuit of building the defence only. However, in my view at least part of the amount is recoverable as, in comparison to the Claimant who has listed their “additional expenses” to amount to AED 24,000 for materially similar expenses, AED 5,000 is a reasonable figure to have spent. Without evidence there is no accuracy, and so half of the additional costs is recoverable by the Defendant.

14. In total, I award the Defendant AED 7,500 for its court fees, AED 82,700 in legal fees and AED 2,500 for additional costs, amounting to AED 92,700 collectively.

15. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant AED 92,700 within 14 days of the date of this costs order, pursuant to Rule 38.40(1) of the DIFC Court Rules.