March 28, 2022 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 085/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) SALEM MOHAMMED BALLAMA ALTAMIMI
(2) DAVID NIGEL CROLL STARK
(3) PAUL JAMES LEGGETT
Claimants
and
(1) EMIRATES NBD BANK (P.J.S.C.)
(2) HSBC BANK MIDDLE EAST LIMITED
(3) ICICI BANK LIMITED, BAHRAIN BRANCH
(4) ICICI BANK UK PLC
(5) UNION BANK OF INDIA
(6) BANK OF JORDAN COMPANY
(7) NATIONAL BANK OF BAHRAIN BSC
(8) AHLI UNITED BANK B.S.C. (DIFC BRANCH)
(9) COMMERCIAL BANK OF DUBAI PSC
(10) WARBA BANK K.S.C.P.
(11) AL AHLI BANK OF KUWAIT K.S.C.P.
(12) MASHREQBANK PSC
(13) ARAB BANKING CORPORATION (B.S.C.)
(14) NATIONAL BANK OF OMAN (S.A.O.G.)
(15) STATE BANK OF INDIA
(16) REGERA S.A.R.L
(17) INTERNATIONAL ELECTRO- MECHANICAL SERVICES CO. ( LLC)
Objecting Parties
(1) EMIRATES HOSPITALS GROUP LLC
(2) KHALEEFA BUTTI OMAIR YOUSIF AHMED AL MUHAIRI
(3) H.E. SAEED MOHAMMED BUTTI MOHAMMED KHALFAN AL QEBAISI
(4) EMIRATES HEALTHCARE L.L.C.
(5) EMIRATES HOSPITAL L.L.C.
(6) EMIRATES SPECIALTY HOSPITAL FZ-LLC
(7) EMIRATES HOSPITALS & CLINICS L.L.C.
(8) EMIRATES HOSPITALS REHABILITATION AND HOMECARE SERVICES L.L.C.
(9) EXCEL HEALTHCARE L.L.C.
(10) EMIRATES PHARMACY L.L.C.
(11) COSMESURGE AND EMIRATES HOSPITAL PHARMACY L.L.C.
(12) VEINCURE CLINIC DMCC
(13) EMIRATES HOSPITAL DAY SURGERY & MEDICAL CENTRE L.L.C.
(14) EMIRATES HOSPITALS CLINICS BUSINESS BAY L.L.C.
(15) KLINIKA MAHARLIKA L.L.C.
(16) AL SABAH MEDICAL CENTRE LLC
(17) COSMOPOLITAN MEDICAL CENTRE L.L.C.
(18) EMIRATES STAR MEDICAL CENTRE L.L.C.
(19) KBBO CPG INVESTMENT LLC
(20) ONE PREPAY COMPANY LLC
(21) TELE LINK COMMUNICATION LLC
(22) CENTURION PARTNERS INVESTMENT L.L.C
(23) FRESH FOODS GROUP – SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP L.L.C.
(24) FRESHLY FROZEN FOODS FACTORY LLC
(25) SENORA FOODS LLC
(26) SENORA QUALITY GENERAL TRADING LLC
(27) FRESHLY FOODS BAKERY LLC
(28) BIN BUTTI INVESTMENTS LLC
(29) INFINITE PARTNERS INVESTMENT LLC
(30) INFINITE INVESTMENT-LLC
(31) KHALEEFA BUTTI BIN OMAIR GROUP-SOLE PROPRIERTORSHIP LLC
(32) KBBO INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE LLC – SOLE OWNERSHIP
Related Parties
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE
UPON reviewing the Claimants’ statement of costs dated 1 February 2022
AND UPON reviewing ENBD Claimants’ statements of costs dated 28 January 2022 and 1 February 2022
AND UPON reviewing EHG Claimants’ statements of costs dated 31 January 2022 and 1 February 2022
AND UPON reviewing Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait statement of costs dated 1 February 2022
AND UPON reviewing Mashreq Bank PSC statement of costs dated 1 February 2022
AND UPON reviewing International Electro-Mechanical Services Co statement of costs dated 31 January 2022
AND UPON the Judgment of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dated 11 February 2022 (the “Judgment")
AND UPON reviewing the Claimants’ submissions on costs dated 23 February 2022 in compliance with the Judgment (the “Claimants’ Costs Submissions”)
AND UPON reviewing ENBD Claimants’ response dated 7 March 2022 in response to the Claimants’ Costs Submissions
AND UPON reviewing Credit Suisse Syndicate parties’ response dated 7 March 2022 in response to the Claimants’ Costs Submissions
AND UPON reviewing Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait response dated 7 March 2022 in response to the Claimants’ Costs Submissions
AND UPON reviewing Mashreq Bank PSC response dated 7 March 2022 in response to the Claimants’ Costs Submissions
AND UPON reviewing International Electro-Mechanical Services Co.(L.L.C).’s response dated 7 March 2022 in response to the Claimants’ Costs Submissions
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimants shall pay the costs of the Objecting Parties of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
2. The costs of the Objecting Parties are summarily assessed individually, as follows:
(a) The amount of AED 174,905.83 is payable to Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait, the Claimant in CFI-085-2020.
(b) The amount of AED 452,418.90 is payable to Mashreq Bank PSC as the Claimant in CFI-063-2020.
(c) The amount of USD 135,641.99 is payable to the Claimants in CFI-060-2020 being (i) Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait K.S.C.P; (ii) Mashreqbank PSC; (iii) Arab Banking Corporation (B.S.C.); (iv) National Bank Of Oman (S.A.O.G.); (v) State Bank Of India; and (6) Regera S.À R.L.
(d) The amount of USD 240,238.78 is payable to the Claimants in CFI-045-2020 being (i) Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, (ii) HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, (iii) ICICI Bank Limited, (iv) ICICI Bank UK Plc, (v) Union Bank of India, (vi) Bank of Jordan Company, (vii) National Bank of Bahrain BSC, (viii) Ahli United Bank BSC (DIFC Branch), (ix) Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC and (x) Warba Bank KSCP.
(e) The amount of AED 110,250 is payable to International Electro-Mechanical Services Co (L.L.C.), the Claimant in CFI-114-2020.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 28 March 2022
At: 1pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Objecting Parties are entitled to their costs on the Indemnity Basis under the terms of RDC r.38.17 and r.38.19 because the conduct of the litigation by the Claimants takes this case away from the norm as seen in the Reasons given for refusing their Part 8 applications to the Court. The attitude of the Claimants toward this Court and its processes, in arrogating to themselves powers to override decisions of this Court, is, as set out in the submissions of the Objecting Parties in seeking costs orders and in those earlier Reasons, remarkable for professional liquidators/ restructuring advisors with a duty to the creditors of the Debtor and guarantors, particularly as seen in relation to the first named Claimant who appears to have cooperated, through lawyers, with defendants who were abusing the process of the Court. There was also a history of procrastination and meritless points taken, with persistence in arguments which they must have appreciated could not succeed in the light of the failure of those defendants to stay the proceedings.
2. The assessment of costs therefore proceeds on the basis that the issue of proportionality is of no application and the burden lies on the Claimants to show that costs have been unreasonably incurred. In reality, given the sums in issue, disproportionality would have been difficult to establish, subject only to the point that, as between the various Objecting Parties, there might have been duplication of work and, regardless of the amount of money claimed, the disputed issues might not have justified the time taken and work done in relation to them. I am satisfied that this is not the case. A number of issues were raised which required the Objecting Parties to do the work for which costs are claimed and considerable efforts were made to avoid unnecessary duplication as between those Objecting Parties. Even in relation to the bundles of documents for the Court, the work of the Claimants was inadequate and had to be made good by lawyers for one of the Objecting Parties.
3. There is no basis for saying that that the work in question was incurred in other proceedings and not in connection with the Claimants’ application. There is no overlap with other proceedings which results in duplication of costs claimed on the part of any one group of Objecting Parties and if claims were being made in respect of work in other proceedings that would be professional misconduct on the part of the lawyers putting forward such claims. I am clear that this has not happened. I am equally satisfied that the costs claimed are reasonable and the criticisms made by the Claimants or on their behalf, do not descend into any detail in relation to hours spent, work done or hourly rates or anything of that kind.
4. In these circumstances I have not thought it right to make any deduction from the sums claimed and each of the groups of Objecting Parties is entitled to recover their costs as claimed from the Claimants. It is not for me to decide whether the Claimants are entitled to reimbursement in respect of this liability for costs from the Debtor or the Joined Litigants in Abu Dhabi.
