April 23, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 099/2025
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) PASCAL FRANCOIS GUTTIERES
(2) DEBORAH NINETTE SHEROON SCEMAMA
Claimants
and
MAYANK SINGHVI
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART
UPON the Claimants’ Part 8 Claim Form and Particulars of Claim dated 31 October 2025
AND UPON hearing counsel for the Claimants and counsel for the Defendant at a hearing held on 8 April 2026 before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart (the “Hearing”) whereby judgment was given ex tempore (the “Ex Tempore Judgment”)
AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 9 April 2026 citing the Ex Tempore Judgment (the “Order dated 9 April”)
AND UPON review of the Claimants’ Statement of Costs dated 8 April 2026
AND UPON review of the Defendant’s submissions in opposition dated 16 April 2026
AND UPON review of the Claimants’ submissions in reply dated 20 April 2026
AND PURSUANT to the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimants’ costs are assessed in the sum of AED 40,000.
2. The Defendant shall pay AED 40,000 to the Claimants within 14 days of the date of this order.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 23 April 2026
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. By the Order dated 9 April 2026, following a hearing on 8 April 2026, the Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimants’ costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing and provision was made for the immediate assessment of those costs.
2. The Claimants served a Schedule of costs on 8 April 2026 seeking a total of AED 44,726.87. The schedule disclosed:
(a) That time was claimed for three fee-earners:
(i) A partner with 21 years’ experience at AED 4,500 per hour;
(ii) A senior associate with 11 years’ experience at AED 3,500 per hour; and
(iii) A junior associate with 3 years’ experience at AED 2,200 per hour;
(b) That the time claimed for each fee earner was:
(i) 3 hours 30 minutes for the partner;
(ii) 6 hours 50 minutes for the senior associate; and
(iii) 2 hours 18 minutes for the junior associate;
(c) That of the above, 47 minutes related to the hearing time itself for both the senior and junior associate.
3. By the Defendant’s submissions in response, the Defendant maintained:
(a) That the sum claimed was excessive, disproportionate and included costs that were not thrown away by the adjournment;
(b) That the rates claimed exceeded the average hourly rates likely to be acceptable as set out in the DIFC Courts Registrar’s Direction of 9 June 2023 in respect of partners (AED 3,746) and lawyers of 10+ years’ experience (AED 3,298) although not for a junior associate (AED 2,391);
(c) That the hours claimed under the various headings was excessive;
(d) That there appeared to be confusion relating to the work claimed as being thrown away by the adjournment and that in relation to the substantive application; and
(e) That the only time allowed should be for the senior associate at the hearing amounting to AED 2,741.67.
4. The Claimants responded asserting:
(a) That the Defendant had misinterpreted the meaning of the order for “cost thrown away” in accordance with RDC 38.12;
(b) That the adjournment did not arise in a vacuum but arose as a result of the late engagement of the Defendant with the court process;
(c) That only costs truly thrown away were claimed;
(d) That the rates indicated by the Registrar’s Direction were only average rates and did not take account either of the specific circumstances of the case, the structure of a legal team or changes in market conditions over time, particularly inflation; and
(e) That the individual objections as to the work claimed were misconceived.
5. I consider the starting point is the proper meaning of the Court’s Order dated 9 April 2026. This was that the Claimants were entitled to have the costs thrown away by the hearing. RDC 38.12 does not define what is meant by the expression “costs thrown away” but instead gives an example of the costs thrown away by a judgment being set aside as being the costs incurred “as a consequence” including attending and preparing for the original hearing where the order set aside was made, preparing for and attending the hearing to set aside the judgment, preparing and attending any hearing where there was an adjournment and any steps taken for enforcement.
6. Here I consider it clear that the order, as properly construed, entitles the Claimants to the costs wasted as a result of the late engagement by the Defendant with the action and the consequent necessity for the adjournment of the hearing with it being re-listed as a consequence. The Claimants had to be ready for the substantive hearing to go ahead but also had to consider and deal with the Defendant’s late intervention. I also consider it plain that the costs sought substantively fall within the category of costs covered by the order.
7. As an overall matter, I do not consider that the overall hours claimed are excessive or surprising. They are in line with what I would expect in the circumstances of the case. Thus, by way of example only, I consider it reasonable for the hearing to have been attended by two fee earners given that one fee earner was to be the advocate. Further the hours claimed in relation to preparation and attendance on documents and on others seem reasonable.
8. That leaves the questions as to:
(a) The hourly rates claimed; and
(b) The balance of work between the fee-earners.
9. In relation to these issues:
(a) The June 2023 average rates are of assistance to the Court when considering the rates claimed;
(b) The rates do not, of course, take into account market conditions or inflation since the issue of the Direction which is now almost 3 years old;
(c) An uplift to take account of inflation of approximately 5% would be appropriate making the average partner’s rate AED 3,933 and that for a senior associate AED 3,463;
(d) This would mean that the partner’s rate is 14.5% above average and the senior associate’s rate about 1% above average;
(e) I do not consider that there is any basis to justify costs higher than average rates in this case given the sums at stake and complexity of the matter. If anything, I would expect the rates to be a little below average for the matter;
(f) The junior associate rate is reasonable;
(g) I consider that a relatively small amount of the work undertaken by the senior associate could have been undertaken by the junior associate.
10. Looking at these matters together, I consider that it is appropriate to make a relatively modest reduction of approximately 10% in the amount claimed. Rounding this down leads to an assessment of AED 40,000 as being the reasonable and proportionate costs which should be paid by the Defendant.
