September 22, 2021 Technology and construction division - Orders
Claim No. TCD 009/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
FIVE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC
Claimant
and
REEM EMIRATES ALUMINIUM LLC
Defendant
JUSTICE SIR RICHARD FIELD’S NOTE TO THE PARTIES ON THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATIONS
IN THE MATTER of the Claimant’s applications: (1) TCD-009-2020/8 to set aside the Deputy Registrar’s immediate assessment of costs in the sum of AED 26,711.50 to be paid by the Claimant dated 18 July 2021; and (2) TCD-009-2020/9 to set aside the Deputy Registrar’s issuance of a Default Costs Certificate dated 18 July 2021.
In respect of Application TCD-009-2020/8:
1. The Defendant must serve within seven days its submissions on the following issues:
(i) The Claimant’s case that: (a) the Defendant’s application dated 17 June 2021 for an order for the immediate assessment of the costs ordered to be paid by Justice Sir Richard Field on 8 June 2021 is of no effect on the ground that it requested an order without a hearing but failed to seek and secure the Defendant’s consent for a paper hearing in breach of RDC 23.75; (b) to the extent that the Deputy Registrar decided on her own initiative not to hold a hearing, the challenged order was invalid being in breach of RDC 4.12 and 4.13 (1) & (2); and (c) the challenged order is invalid on the ground that the Claimant had filed Points of Dispute on 4 July 2021.
(ii) The Deputy Registrar was entitled to make the order now challenged on the ground that the Claimant had failed within 21 days to respond to the Defendant’s said application or seek a stay of the cost assessment proceedings.
(iii) The order of the Deputy Registrar could only have been challenged by an application for a De Novo review under Practice Direction No. 3 of 2015 submitted by way of application filed and served within 3 working days after the said order was issued unless the Court had ordered otherwise.
(iv) Whether this application should be determined with or without a hearing.
2. The Claimant must serve its submissions in reply within 7 days of receiving the submissions served by the Defendant and must indicate whether in respect of its said application it intends to rely on the Points of Dispute dated 14 June 2021.
In respect of Application TCD-009-2020/9:
1. The Defendant must serve within seven days its submissions on the following issues:
(i) The Claimant’s case that: (a) the Defendants Notice of Commencement of Bill of Costs dated 9 June 2021 and its application dated 4 July 2021 for a Default Costs Certificate in respect of order for costs ordered to be paid by Justice Sir Richard Field on 31 May 2021 are each of no effect on the ground that each requested an order without a hearing but failed to seek and secure the Defendant’s consent for a paper hearing in breach of RDC 23.75; (b) to the extent that the Deputy Registrar decided on her own initiative not to hold a hearing, the challenged order was invalid being in breach of RDC 4.12 and 4.13(1) & (2). (c) the challenged order is invalid on the ground that the Claimant had filed Points of Dispute on 4 July 2021.
(ii) The Deputy Registrar was entitled to make the order now challenged on the ground that the Claimant had failed within 21 days to respond to the Defendant’s said application or seek a stay of the cost assessment proceedings.
(iii) The order of the Deputy Registrar could only have been challenged by an application for a De Novo review under Practice Direction No. 3 of 2015 submitted by way of application filed and served within 3 working days after the said order was issued unless the Court had ordered otherwise.
(iv) Whether this application should be determined with or without a hearing.
2. The Claimant must serve its submissions in reply within 7 days of receiving the submissions served by the Defendant and must indicate whether in respect of its said application it intends to rely on the Points of Dispute dated 14 June 2021.
Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of Issue: 22 September 2021
At: 3.45pm
