March 31, 2026 Technology and construction division - Orders
Claim No: TCD 002/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
AHMED MOHAMED EID Al YAHAD AL ZAABI
Claimant
and
AL BUHAIRA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART KC
UPON the Claimant’s Part 7 Claim Form dated 11 July 2024 (the “Action”)
AND UPON the Judgment of H.E Roger Stewart KC dated 27 August 2025 giving judgment for the Defendant (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendant filing a Statement of Costs dated 4 September 2025 in relation to its costs of the Action
AND UPON the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 11 September 2025 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Permission to Appeal Application”)
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Roger Stewart KC dated 8 October 2025 refusing the Permission to Appeal Application (the “PTA Refusal”)
AND UPON the Defendant filing a Statement of Costs dated 27 October 2025 in relation to its costs of opposing the Permission to Appeal Application
AND UPON the Defendant filing a revised Statement of Costs dated 31 October 2025 in relation to its costs of the Action
AND UPON the Claimant not filing any response to the Defendant’s statements of costs
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant’s costs of the Action are assessed in the sum of AED 900,000.
2. The Defendant’s costs of opposing the Permission to Appeal Application are assessed in the sum of AED 40,000.
3. The sums identified in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant within 14 days of the date of this Order
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 31 March 2026
At: 11am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Judgment:
(a) Dismissed the Claimant’s claim for the reasons set out therein;
(b) Awarded the Defendant its costs of the claim which were to be immediately assessed;
(c) Required the Defendant to provide a schedule of its costs within 7 days from the date of the Judgment; and
(d) Permitted the Claimant to comment on the claimed costs no later than 14 days from the date of the Judgment.
2. The Defendant duly produced a schedule of costs dated 4 September 2025 seeking total costs of AED 1,046,929.15.
3. The PTA refusal:
(a) Refused the Permission to Appeal Application;
(b) Awarded the Defendant its costs of opposing the Permission to Appeal Application;
(c) Required the Defendant to file and serve a Statement of Costs and any short submission in support of the costs claimed within 21 days;
(d) Permitted the Claimant to provide any submissions in response to the costs claimed within 14 days of the statement of costs.
4. The Defendant filed and served a Statement of Costs seeking a total sum of AED 43,756.75 on 27 October 2025 in relation to the opposing the Permission to Appeal Application.
5. On 31 October 2025, the Defendant sought to issue a revised statement of costs of the Action in the total sum of AED 1,071,055.96 on the basis that its initial statement had omitted an invoice in the sum of AED 25,333.15 from an expert witness.
6. The Claimant has not responded to the costs submissions in any way.
7. There are three issues to consider:
(a) Whether to permit the Defendant to add the omitted sum relating to the expert witness from its costs of the Action;
(b) The proper sum to be allowed in respect of the costs of the Action; and
(c) The proper sum to be allowed in respect of the costs of the permission to appeal application.
8. In relation to the first issue, I do not consider that it is appropriate to permit the Defendant to add the omitted sum. My reasons are:
(a) Immediate assessment is meant to lead to a quick assessment of costs and avoid the need for the lengthy process of detailed assessment;
(b) I do not consider there was a good reason for the omission of the sum in that it must have been apparent that there was a missing invoice;
(c) The Claimant would have to be given an opportunity to comment on the revised amount which would delay the process of assessment; and
(d) The omitted sum is relatively small in relation to the costs sought so that there is limited prejudice to the Defendant in not permitting the amount to be altered.
9. In relation to the quantum of costs sought generally, the Claimant has not responded to any particular items. The Court must nonetheless consider the reasonableness and proportionality of the sums sought.
10. In relation to the costs sought generally:
(a) The rates generally sought appear reasonable with one exception. All of the Defendant’s legal team are charged at AED 1850 per hour except for Mr Ahmed who was charged at AED 1967 per hour. All of the fee earners were of at least 7 years experience with one exception (who had 2 years experience). This meant that there was no junior resource available at a lower rate than AED 1850 per hour.
(b) In general, the hours sought to be charged appear reasonable but I consider it should have been possible to have a proportion of the work carried out by more junior staff at a lower rate.
11. In relation to the costs of the Action, I consider that the above matter leads to a reduction so that the total assessed costs will be AED 900,000.
12. In relation to the costs of the Permission to Appeal Application, I consider that only a very modest reduction is required so that the costs are assessed at AED 40,000.
