Privacy Settings

Claim No. TCD 001/2020

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

HUOBI OTC DMCC

Claimant

and

(1) TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL LIMITED
(2) MR CHRISTIAN THURNER

Defendants

ORDER OF JUSTICE SIR RICHARD FIELD

RULING ON MATTERS LEFT OVER FROM THE PTR INCLUDING THE SECOND DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR COSTS IN RESPECT OF HIS SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATION AND IN RESPECT OF RESPONDING TO THE CLAIMANT’S PROPOSED LOST OPPORTUNITY CLAIM

Second Defendant’s (“D2”) costs on its application for security for costs

1. In principle, having in substance succeeded on its second application for security for costs, D2 is entitled to its reasonable costs notwithstanding that in the result the order for the provision of security was made against the Claimant and not Sultan Al Ali and Mr Davar who were the respondent’s to D2’s application.

2. That said, I am of the firm view that the hours claimed far exceed the reasonable time needed to mount the application and it was wholly unnecessary for two advocates to appear on the PTR. In the result, I award D2 costs in the sum of AED 65,000 under this head.

D2’s costs on resisting the proposed amendment to plead lost opportunity damages

3. The proposed amendment to plead lost opportunity damages was on the stocks for eight days. I can see scant evidence to justify the time said to have been spent on this aspect of the damages amendment. Permission was given for the reformulated alternative damages plea in the face of D2’s unsustainable objections that the alternative plea was bad in law when, as was held, these objections were a matter for the trial. In my judgment, on the evidence before the Court, D2’s allowable costs under this head are in the sum of AED 17,000.

When should the costs awarded become payable?

4. As matters presently stand, D2 is the subject of an adverse costs order in respect of his misconceived joinder application. I also think it appropriate when fixing the payment date to take into account the wholly unjustified discarding of the laptops that had been returned to D2 by the police and the aggressive and unreasonable stance D2 has taken over the question of redactions and document production.

5. With these considerations in mind, I direct that the above awards of costs in D2’s favour shall only become payable once all questions of costs as between the Claimant and D2 have been determined following the trial of the action and that in addition the Claimant will be entitled to set off against these costs awards, awards of costs that have been made in its favour against D2.

The draft order submitted by D1 and D2.

6. This Order needs to be amended to reflect: (i) the fact that the Order made on D2’s application for security for costs was made against the Claimant and not against Sultan Al Ali and Mr Davar; (ii) the subsequent amendment to the time for service of the expert reports and the witness statements, the skeleton arguments, the agreed chronology, trial timbale and reading list; and (iii) the costs orders made herein.

7. The parties must agree an order and submit it the Court by 4pm Wednesday, 17 November 2021.

Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of Issue: 16 November 2021
At: 9am