Privacy Settings

(a) Pursuant to Rule 38.18(1) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), the Respondent is only entitled to those costs that are “proportionate to the matters in issue” . The Respondent is not entitled to any costs which have been “unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount” (RDC 38.17);

(b) The Respondent appointed new solicitors (Charles Fussell & Co) after the Application was filed, and Charles Fussell & Co only came on record on 21 May 2024. The Appellants note the indication by English Costs Judge Rowley that time spent by new lawyers reading into a file is “a matter between the solicitors and their client. It is not for the opponent to pay.” (Lyle and another v Bedborough and another [2022] EWHC 1628 (SCCO), paragraph 28). To the extent that the fees claimed in the Statement of Costs relate to any time spent by the Respondent’s new solicitors reading into and familiarising themselves with the matter, these fees should accordingly be reduced;

(c) The Respondent’s legal team for the Application consisted of a partner, internal counsel (i.e. not external Leading Counsel), and a paralegal. The majority of work was completed at partner-level, rather than being reasonably allocated to the other members of the legal team. The Appellants submit that much of the work could likely have been completed by internal counsel (or another more junior lawyer) and paralegals, at a lower cost;

(d) With respect to the expert’s fees claimed in relation to the Appeal, it is unclear on what basis any further assistance from Mr Lawler was required or sought by the Respondent, in circumstances where no further evidence from either party’s sanctions expert was required at appeal. Mr Lawler’s fees should accordingly be excluded or reduced.

(a) While the claim was not among the largest heard by this Court (a shade under AED 20 million) it raised complex and novel (for these Courts) issues relating to the US/Iran sanctions regime. We do not consider an overall claim for costs including the fees of Leading Counsel in the sum of AED 360,011 to be disproportionate to the matters in issue and, in fairness, it does not seem to be suggested by the Appellants that that is the case;

(b) We do however consider that there is some force in the suggestion that there is likely to be some duplication of costs on the part of new lawyers appointed after the Appeal was filed reading into the case. This is an immediate assessment and we do not have access to detailed timesheets. We must take a broadbrush approach. We note that the total claimed under the rubric “Work Done on Documents” is AED 89,100. We will reduce that sum by 50% on the basis that the original legal representatives would already have been familiar with the documents. We will therefore deduct AED 44,555;

(c) We do not accept the criticism that much of the work could likely have been completed by internal counsel (or another more junior lawyer) and paralegals, at a lower cost for two reasons. First, when one reduces the time spent on “Work Done on Documents” the remaining time does not seem unreasonable and there is a risk of double deduction. Secondly, we note that Charles Fussell is the eponymous senior partner of a two-partner firm. Parties are entitled to choose to be represented by small specialist firms chosen for the very reason that they will have the services of a particular individual. Mr Fussell’s hourly rates are well within the indicative rates adopted by the DIFC Courts (AED 2,940 versus AED 3,746);

(d) Again, we do not have any breakdown of Mr Lawler’s fees but it is worth noting that he was a legal expert not a technical expert. The DIFC Courts might as easily have accepted his contribution as submission rather than expert evidence. The Court can well imagine that he had a hand in instructing English Leading Counsel in the intricacies of US sanctions law, practice and procedure so as to enable her properly to argue the Appeal on behalf of the Respondent. We are not therefore inclined to exclude or reduce the amount recovered in respect of Mr Lawler fees.