Privacy Settings

Claim No. CFI 005/2021

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) ANOOP KUMAR LAL
(2) PAUL PATRICK HENNESSY

Claimants/Appellants

and

DONNA BENTON

Defendant/Respondent

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE

UPON the Part 8 Claim Form dated 14 January 2021 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Judgment of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 22 September 2023 (the “Judgment”)

AND UPON the Claimants’ Appeal Notice dated 13 October 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment (the “Permission Application”)

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 21 December 2023 refusing the Permission Application

AND UPON the Claimants’ Appeal Notice dated 25 December 2023 seeking renewed permission to appeal against the Judgment (the “Renewed Permission Application”)

AND UPON the decision of H.E. Justice Robert French made 2 September 2024 refusing the Claimants’ request for an oral hearing

AND UPON the decision of H.E. Justice Robert French dated 10 September 2024 refusing the Renewed Permission Application

AND UPON reviewing the Claimants’ Supplemental Submissions dated 3 October 2024 and the Defendant’s Responsive Submissions dated 10 October 2024

AND UPON the Reasons for Judgment of H.E. Justice French dated 22 October 2024

AND UPON the Defendant’s costs submissions dated 25 October 2024

AND UPON the Registry’s directions dated 13 January 2025 requesting the Claimant to file their submissions on the question of costs

AND UPON the Claimants submissions dated 15 November 2024 and 3 February 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimants shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis by the Registrar if not agreed.

Issued By:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 14 February 2025
At: 10am

Introduction

1. The Claimants are incorrect in their interpretation of the words 'costs reserved'. An expression such as this simply means that the question of costs can be considered at a later date, on the application of either party. There is nothing improper in the Defendant's application for costs at this stage. The court is not functus so far as concerns the question of costs.

2. I have read the Claimants' submissions in opposition to the application. Apart from the incorrect legal submission, their submissions consist largely of criticisms of the judgment. Many of those matters were raised on the unsuccessful application for permission to appeal. They are not relevant to the question of costs.

3. I can see no reason to depart from the usual presumption that costs follow success. The Defendant was successful and should have her costs of the action, to be assessed by the Registrar on the standard basis if not agreed.