Claim No: CFI 092/2024

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MAG DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LIMITED

Claimant

and

(1) THE COLLECTION CLUB RESTAURANT LTD
(2) LAURENT BUISINE
(3) HUGO VALAT

Defendants

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

UPON the Claim being filed on 10 December 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-092-2024/2 dated 7 October 2025, seeking immediate judgment pursuant to Rule 24.1 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) (the “Application”)

AND UPON the paragraph 2 of the Order with Reasons of H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 28 January 2026 awarding costs on the standard basis to be assessed on the parties’ submissions (the “Order”)

AND UPON review of the parties’ costs submissions

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendants shall pay 60% of the Claimant’s costs of the Application, assessed in the sum of USD 46,418.37.

Issued by
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 28 April 2026
At: 12pm

1. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order, costs are to be assessed on the standard basis by way of written submissions.

Submissions

2. The Claimant seeks recovery of its costs in the sum of USD 77,363.95 following the determination of the Defendants’ Application, which sought the removal of the Second and Third Defendants. The Application was decided in the Claimant’s favour. Paragraph 2 of the Order dictated that costs were to be awarded on the standard basis, and assessed through the parties’ submissions.

3. The starting point is the general rule under RDC 38.7(1), namely that costs follow the event. As the successful party in the Application, the Claimant’s position is that it is entitled to recover all of its costs from the Defendants.

4. The Claimant further relies on RDC 38.21, submitting that its costs were both reasonably and proportionately incurred and are reasonable and proportionate in amount. It also invites consideration of all circumstances, including party conduct, which are submitted to squarely award the entire costs sought pursuant to RDC 38.23.

5. As to proportionality and reasonableness, the Claimant advances several points.

6. First, it submits that its legal team was structured efficiently. The work was primarily undertaken by an associate, Ms Sinjab, at a discounted hourly rate of USD 531.25, significantly below the indicative rate for similarly qualified lawyers. The supervising partner, Mr Moore, charged USD 913.75 per hour, likewise below the applicable guideline rate as per the Registrar’s Direction No. 1 of 2023.

7. The Claimant emphasises that the allocation of work ensured proportionality: the associate undertook the majority of the work, spending approximately 76.5 hours, compared to the partner’s 25 hours in a supervisory capacity.

8. Second, the Claimant submits that it engaged external counsel, Mr Martin Khoshdel, on a fixed fee basis capped at USD 13,605.44, thereby ensuring cost control and proportionality.

9. Third, it contends that the engagement of counsel was justified by the importance and potential impact of the Application on the proceedings.

10. In addition to the quantum of costs, the Claimant places reliance on the Defendants’ conduct.

11. It submits that the Application was “hopeless” and ought never to have been brought. In this regard, it relies on paragraphs 54, 60 and various comments at [55] to [59] of the Order in which the Court rejected the Defendants’ characterisation of the issues as suitable for immediate determination and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment.

12. The Claimant contends that it was put to unnecessary cost in resisting an Application that had no real prospects of success.

13. Further, the Claimant criticises the Defendants’ conduct following the hearing. It submits that the Defendants improperly attempted to introduce new evidence and submissions after the hearing had concluded, thereby necessitating additional work and expense on the part of the Claimant.

14. The Claimant also asserts that the Defendants’ post-hearing submissions were procedurally improper and contained statements that were false and misleading.

15. In light of these matters, the Claimant submits that it should recover all of its costs of and arising from the Application on the standard basis.

16. The Defendants, for their part, emphasise at the outset that the Court retains a broad discretion as to costs under RDC 38.6, including whether costs are payable, their amount, and the timing of payment. The Defendants resist the sought quantum in its entirety, contending that the costs sought are unreasonable, disproportionate, and insufficiently substantiated.

17. They further rely on RDC 38.18, submitting that only costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue should be allowed, and that any doubt should be resolved in favour of the paying party.

18. The Defendants submit that the burden lies on the Claimant to demonstrate that its costs were reasonably incurred and proportionate in amount. They contend that the Claimant has failed to discharge that burden.

19. Turning to the general rule under RDC 38.7, the Defendants accept that costs ordinarily follow the event, but emphasise that the Court may depart from that rule where appropriate.

20. The Defendants place particular reliance on RDC 38.8, 38.9 and 38.23, submitting that the Court must consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the complexity and importance of the matter, and the time spent.

21. The central thrust of the Defendants’ submissions is that the Claimant’s costs are grossly disproportionate.

22. First, they contend that the time spent by the Claimant’s legal team is excessive. The Claimant claims approximately 101 hours and 48 minutes, whereas the Defendants’ own time spent on the Application, including preparation and the hearing, amounted to approximately 47 hours.

23. The Defendants emphasise that they were the applicants and bore the primary burden of preparing the Application, yet expended significantly fewer hours than the Claimant.

24. They submit that the issue raised by the Application was a simple and discrete one, namely whether certain defendants should remain subject to lease obligations. In those circumstances, the Claimant, as respondent, ought to have required substantially less time.

25. Second, the Defendants challenge the engagement of Mr Khoshdel. They note that his involvement was not included in the Claimant’s initial statement of costs and was introduced only subsequently, adding over USD 13,000 to the total.

26. They contend that there was no proper justification for instructing additional counsel, particularly after earlier issues concerning counsel registration had been resolved.

27. Third, the Defendants argue more generally that the level of time billed reflects an uneconomical and inefficient approach, inconsistent with the overriding objective of controlling costs.

28. In relation to conduct, the Defendants reject the Claimant’s allegations of impropriety.

29. They submit that prior to issuing the Application, they made efforts to resolve the matter but were left with no alternative but to proceed.

30. They further contend that the Application raised a point of genuine importance which they were entitled to pursue.

31. As to the Claimant’s allegations that their submissions were false and misleading, the Defendants characterise these as serious and unfounded accusations, said to be contrary to the applicable standards of professional conduct, which further necessitated the Application.

32. The Defendants conclude that the Application concerned a discrete procedural issue rather than a full merits determination, and that the Claimant’s costs are wholly disproportionate to such an application.

33. Accordingly, they invite me to reject the Claimant’s costs in its entirety, or alternatively to make a substantial reduction and order that any costs be costs in the case.

Discussion and Conclusion

34. First, the Claimant was plainly successful, with the reasons for the failure of the Application to reach the Part 24 threshold being explicitly expressed in the Order. Therefore, the Defendants’ position that the Claimants should recover nothing is not realistically sustainable.

35. Only one point materially weakens the Claimant’s full recovery; first, the Application itself was straightforward and the disparity in hours is difficult to ignore. The Claimants’ hours are filed without real explanation or justification, which raises legitimate proportionality concerns under RDC 38.21 and 38.18, as the expectation for a simple application such as this is that a similar amount of time is to be spent on handling the Application by both parties. It is unclear as to why the Claimant has recorded double the hours in dedication to the Application in isolation, and in the absence of identifying any valid reason for doing so, particular weight is placed on this aspect of the Defendants’ objection to awarding total costs; recoverable costs will be balanced against this disparity.

36. As to the addition of Mr Martin Koshdel, I find no real weight in the Defendants’ objection to paying counsel fees due to his absence in the initial statement of costs. It is the nature of litigation for matters to evolve over time – including the instruction of counsel, and even change of legal representation – of which cannot always be predicted from the outset. The consideration here is whether Mr Koshdel’s instruction was proportionate and necessary. I have not seen any evidence proving the contrary. While the absence of this cost from the earlier estimate may justify closer scrutiny on assessment, I have not been presented with any particular reason to do so in these submissions.

37. Issues of conduct lay heavier on the Defendants. I note the Defendants’ submission that it attempted reconciliation. Upon review of the referenced exhibits in the twelfth witness statement of Jordana Dray dated 11 February 2026, I cannot see that any substantive action was taken to prevent, delay or circumvent the Defendants’ felt necessity in making the Application. I do not accept that any real negotiation was tried, and so I cannot amend the costs awarded with this submission in consideration.

38. As stated, the Claimant is the clear successor and so is entitled to its costs following the event under Part 38 of the RDC, particularly considering that the Application was clearly without merit and so unnecessary to litigate under Part 24. Nonetheless, the unexplained and disproportionate disparity in hours affects the recoverability of the entire sought costs pursuant to RDC 38.21 and 38.18, and so the final award will reflect that. Hence, 60% of the Claimant’s sought costs are awarded, being USD 46,418.37.