Claim No. ARB 003/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) MURIF
(2) MIJUL
Claimants/Respondents
and
(1) MIPY
(2) MADLI
Defendants/Appellants
ORDER OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON reviewing the Defendants’ Appeal Notice dated 16 October 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Order of the Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo dated 14 September 2023 (the “Permission Application”)
AND UPON reviewing the Respondents’ response to the Permission Application
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material added on to the Court file
AND UPON reviewing Rule 44.19 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Permission Application is granted.
2. Costs shall be costs in the case.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 21 November 2023
Time: 12pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Defendants in this Claim (the “Permission Application”), against the Order of Assistant Registrar Delvin sumo dated 14 September 2023 (the “Order”).
2. The background of this Claim need not be repeated in the course of this decision.
3. In accordance with Rule 44.19 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)., permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Permission Application filed by the Defendants, I find that the Permission Application meets the requirements under RDC 44.19. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. The Defendants submits 6 grounds on which its appeal is based on. However, I find that ground 1 is sufficient enough for the Courts to grant Permission Application.
6. Ground 1 is that the costs granted do not relate to the matters in issue and are beyond the scope of the set aside order.
7. RDC 38.18 provides that “where an amount of costs to be assessed on the standard basis, the Court will:
(1) Only allow the amount of costs which are proportionate to the matter in issue; and
(2) Resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
8. The Defendants submit that the bill of costs filed by the Claimants (the “Bill of Costs”) only highlighted the purported work undertaken for the preparation of the injunction which are not the matter in issue. The Bill of Costs also did not have any entries whatsoever regarding any work done on the Challenge Application and the Relief Application.
9. I have reviewed the order dated 29 July 2021 where the Set Aside Application, Relief Application and Challenge Application were dismissed, and the costs thereto were decided as follows:
(1) The Costs of the relief Application and the Challenge Application were payable by the Appellant to the Respondent on a Standard basis to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.
10. I have reviewed the Bill of Costs, in my view, it does not provide details of what is the work done in relation to the Relief Application and the Challenge Application.
11. Therefore, in light of the Defendants’ submission, I am of the view that the appeal does have a prospect of success and I also find a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, and therefore the Permission Application does satisfy the requirements of RDC 44.19.
12. Costs shall be costs in the case.