October 09, 2024 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 001/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
NASHIR
Claimant
and
(1) NASIB (2) NASR
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK
UPON the Part 8 Claim Form dated 5 January 2024 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendants at the hearing held on 8 October 2024
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. There shall be judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of USD 150,000 plus simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31 March 2022 until payment.
2. The Defendant shall also pay to the Claimant its costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis.
3. I direct that an immediate assessment of those costs shall take place before the Registrar.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 9 October 2024
At: 1pm
1. This is a Part 8 Claim by Nashir (“Nashir”) against Nasib (“Nasib”) under a Loan Agreement dated 11 October 2021 (the “Loan Agreement”) for a debt in the sum of USD 150,000. The Loan Agreement does not contain a governing law or jurisdiction clause but both parties are DIFC companies whereby the assumption is that DIFC law is the governing law, and no challenge is made to the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. In fact, Nasib, appearing before the Court by its controlling directors and shareholders, admits the debt to Nashir and accepts that judgment will be entered against it.
3. Nashir seeks interest on the outstanding sum from the date the loan was to be repaid, namely 31 March 2022, until full payment is made at the rate of 9% per annum on the basis that it is a rate commonly awarded in commercial disputes of this nature. I am satisfied that interest should be awarded and that the rate of interest shall be 9% in accordance with paragraph 3 of Practice Direction No 4 of 2017 – Interest on Judgments.
4. Nashir also seeks its costs on the indemnity basis. Practice Direction No. 5 of 2014 DIFC Courts’ Costs Regime indicates at paragraph 1 that in determining whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis as opposed to the standard basis the Court will take into consideration whether there are circumstances where the facts of the case and/or the conduct of the paying party are/is such as to take the situation away from the norm. I do not see any such circumstances in this case. It is a simple commercial debt claim.
5. In the circumstances, there shall be judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of USD 150,000 plus simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31 March 2022 until payment.
6. The Defendant shall also pay to the Claimant its costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis.
7. The Claimant should have sought an immediate assessment of those costs, but it did not. I therefore direct that an immediate assessment of those costs shall take place. While Rule 38.31 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts suggests that if an immediate assessment of costs is appropriate, but the Court awarding costs is unable to do so on the day, the Court will give directions as to a further hearing before the same Judge, I read that rule as permissive not mandatory. I will therefore direct that the immediate assessment shall take place before the Registrar.
