Claim No. CFI 082/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

CAYAN ASSETS INVESTMENTS LLC

Claimant

and

(1) EFS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(2) LANE INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS INC
(3) TAREK TABARI
(4) OMER KHAN

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE

UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 11 February 2025 consolidating the Second Defendant’s Application No. APP-001-2024 dated 24 December 2024 seeking to discharge the Stop Notice dated 25 October 2024 (the “Discharge Application”) and the Second Defendant’s Application No. CFI-082-2024/1 dated 26 December 2024 seeking to strike out the Part 8 Claim pursuant to RDC 4.16 and/or for immediate judgment pursuant to RDC 24.1 (the “Strike Out Application”)(the “Second Defendant’s Consolidated Applications”)

AND UPON the Consent Orders dated 11, 13, 24 and 27 March 2025 imposing an agreed stay to the Second Defendant’s Consolidated Applications

AND UPON the Claimant’s filling of the amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim on 25 March 2025

AND UPON hearing counsel for the Claimant and counsel for the Second Defendant at the Consolidated Application Hearing before H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 2 September 2025

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 8 September 2025 (i) dismissing the Discharge Application, the Strike Out Application and the Second Defendant’s Application dated 26 December 2024 for immediate judgement; and (ii) permitting the parties to file submissions on costs

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 360,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court in respect of the Consolidated Applications.

2. The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 40,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court in respect of the assessment of costs in paragraph 1 of this Order.

3. The Second Defendants shall, within 28 days, pay the Claimant the sum of AED 150,000 as the reasonable costs assessed by the Court on the Indemnity basis in respect of the Case Management directions given on 11 February 2025.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 29 September 2025
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant succeeded on the Consolidated Applications of the Second Defendant (“Lane”) to strikeout the claims, for immediate summary judgment in its favour and for discharge of the Stop Notice. On principle, in the ordinary way, absent special circumstances, the Claimant would be entitled to an order for costs, as previously stated by the Court in its order of 8 September 2025. There are no special circumstances which apply here, whether or not Lane may succeed at the end of the day in defeating the claims made against them.

2. Much of the argument advanced by Lane is unprincipled in the light of the essential point made by the Claimant as set out in paragraph 1 above. The arguments that each party should bear its own costs, that costs should be in the case or reserved, all founder on this point.

3. There is no dispute that the costs of these applications should be assessed on the standard basis, although the Claimant also seeks immediate assessment of the costs of the Case Management Directions on the indemnity basis, which is the basis that the Court has already ordered.

4. I have and bear in mind all the arguments put forward by the Claimant in its submissions, Lane in its submissions and the Claimant in reply submissions, even if I do not expressly deal with each and every point raised in them. Lane wished to put in a rejoinder and to say a great deal more, including presenting further arguments on the matters referred to in the next paragraph but I declined to allow that for the reasons given separately, on the basis of proportionality, economics and case management efficiency.

5. Lane argues that the Court should take into account correspondence between the parties which is “Without prejudice save as to costs”. The Claimant said that the correspondence does not relate to any admissible offer relating to the Applications which were refused by the Court and that only an offer in which Lane offered to agree to the dismissal of its applications and payment of costs up to the date of the offer could have any relevance. Any other offer would not represent an equal or better outcome than that achieved by Cayan. Lane has not pointed to any such offer nor contradicted that statement and the Court must therefore proceed on the basis that the terms of any without prejudice offer relates to some other aspect of the proceedings or the proceedings as a whole, where issues of costs may be affected. There is no suggestion that Lane was offering to compromise the Applications on terms which equalled or bettered the terms of the Court’s order. Even if Lane were to succeed on some other issue, or in relation to proceedings as a whole, or were to equal or better any offer relating thereto, this correspondence, which the Court has not seen, would not be admissible or relevant to its decision on the costs of these Consolidated Applications by Lane.

6. Lane claims that detailed assessment is required for procedural reasons and because arguments are raised as to the quantum claimed.

7. There is no duplication involved in splitting the costs of the two Consolidated Applications and, given the different timing of them, it is evident that, although they involved essentially the same issues, the former in time gave rise to separate and greater costs.

8. The Claimant’s costs schedules were said by Lane to include costs relating to the transfer from Part 8 to Part 7, the consolidation of the Applications and the Amendment to the Particulars of Claim but the Claimant says that these are not included and are subject to separate costs orders. All the recorded work for which costs are claimed relate to the Applications, including work in respect of later abandoned grounds, such as the argument based on commencement of the proceedings as a Part 8 Claim. The statement of truth of a solicitor confirms this. Likewise, there is nothing in the complaint about VAT being charged, since Hadef is not based in the DIFC. Nor is the Claimant and VAT is payable on Counsel’s fees, incurred as a principal and passed on to the client. Official guidance from the UAE tax authority supports this position.

9. The Schedules of costs advanced by the Claimant follow the standard form in characterizing areas of recorded work and time spent for the purposes of summary assessment. Hourly rates are criticized because of change, but a change in rates when the level of an individual’s PQE changes whilst a case is ongoing is not unusual. As long as the indemnity principle is observed and the rates were charged, as explained with a statement of truth, there is nothing objectionable in this. All hourly rates are below the indicative rates in the Registrar’s Direction No 1 of 2023.

10. There is no basis for criticism of Fazal 3 for the reasons given by the Claimant, save in respect of minor parts of the witness statement which constituted comment or argument, which is commonly the case and sometimes difficult to avoid when explaining the course of proceedings to the Court. That is insufficient to justify anything other than a very small discount on the sums claimed.

11. The only real issues which arise in relation to summary assessment are the usual ones for the Court to determine- namely questions about the amount of time spent on the various recorded activities and costs charged in consequence when seen in conjunction with the fees of Counsel.

12. In these circumstances, it is for the Court to assess that degree of excess which is, to some extent, inevitable, and it does so on a broad-brush basis. Looking at the overall position and the hours spent on attendances and work done on documents, it appears to the Court that some reduction falls to be made but not by a large percentage. I assess the overall figure payable by Lane in respect of these two Consolidated Applications as AED 360,000.

13. Additionally, the Claimant seeks an additional figure of AED 59,634 as the costs of the submissions on costs. Lane has not had any opportunity to challenge this and I bear that in mind. It is inevitable, given my decision on the Applications and the costs of those Applications that reasonable costs incurred in dealing with the costs issues will be incurred and that, as Lane has failed in every major respect on its costs submissions, it should pay those costs. I assess those costs at AED 40,000, making a substantial discount because Lane could have made some, though limited, criticism of the figures if given the chance. It would have been inappropriate to allow further submissions to be made for reasons of proportionality, economics and efficient case management, as was the case when I refused Lane’s applications referred to in paragraph 4 of these Reasons.

14. There remains one further matter which is the assessment of Indemnity Costs in relation to the Case Management/ Directions Application, which are claimed in the sum of AED 197,265.93. It makes sense to deal with these also at this juncture because it would be inappropriate for the costs of an application determined on paper to be the subject of detailed assessment or for a separate assessment to be instituted. Lane takes another technical point is saying that if detailed commencement proceedings are not commenced within 3 months, RDC 40.13 permits the Court to disallow all or part of the costs to be assessed. This is meritless in the circumstances which obtain here for the reasons given by the Claimant at paragraph 32 of its Reply.

15. In further opposition, Lane says that detailed assessment is needed but also complains at the use of King’s Counsel at a cost of AED 41,310.93 and the hours spent by Hadef. I consider that there is some force in these latter points, but none in the former. Taking the same broad-brush approach as before, I assess the recoverable costs at AED 150,000.