ï»ż
![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||||||||||
|
THE FUTURE OF BAILII DEPENDS ON USERS LIKE YOU
If you want to be able to use BAILII in the future, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law.
Your donation, no matter the size, will help BAILII maintain the legal databases that you and many other users rely on. If every visitor this month gives just Ł5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
| ||||||||||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> IDBI Bank Limited v (1) Mabani Delma General Contracting Co LLC (2) Heliopolis Electric Company LLC (3) Delma Engineering Projects Company LLC (4) Delma Emirates Diesel (5) Delma Emirates General Transport (6) Ahmed Khalil Khaled Almeraikhi (7) Sherifa Ahmed Khalil Khaled Almeraikhi (8) Mariam Ahmed Khaled Almeraikhi [2026] DIFC CFI 070 (25 March 2026) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2026/DCFI_070.html Cite as: [2026] DIFC CFI 070, [2026] DIFC CFI 70 |
||||||||||
[New search] [Help]
CFI 070/2018 IDBI Bank Limited v (1) Mabani Delma General Contracting Co LLC (2) Heliopolis Electric Company LLC (3) Delma Engineering Projects Company LLC (4) Delma Emirates Diesel (5) Delma Emirates General Transport (6) Ahmed Khalil Khaled Almeraikhi (7) Sherifa Ahmed Khalil Khaled Almeraikhi (8) Mariam Ahmed Khaled Almeraikhi
March 25, 2026 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 070/2018
IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
IDBI BANK LIMITED
Claimant
and
(1) MABANI DELMA GENERAL CONTRACTING CO LLC
(2) HELIOPOLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC
(3) DELMA ENGINEERING PROJECTS COMPANY LLC
(4) DELMA EMIRATES DIESEL
(5) DELMA EMIRATES GENERAL TRANSPORT
(6) AHMED KHALIL KHALED ALMERAIKHI
(7) SHERIFA AHMED KHALIL KHALED ALMERAIKHI
(8) MARIAM AHMED KHALED ALMERAIKHIDefendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI
UPON the Claimantâs Amended Claim Form dated 16 October 2018 (the âClaimâ)
AND UPON the Order of Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 23 March 2022 (the âSanctions Orderâ)
AND UPON the Sixth Defendantâs Application No. CFI-070-2018/11 dated 30 December 2024, seeking to strike out the Claim against the Sixth Defendant and to set aside the Sanctions Order against the Sixth Defendant (the âSet Aside Applicationâ)
AND UPON the Sixth Defendantâs Application No. CFI-070-2018/12 dated 19 March 2025, seeking relief from the sanctions imposed in the Sanctions Order against the Sixth Defendant (the âRelief from Sanctions Applicationâ)
AND UPON hearing the Claimantâs representative and the authorised representative of the Sixth Defendant at an Application Hearing before H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani on 8 July 2025 (the âHearingâ)
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 22 January 2026 setting aside the Sanctions Order to the extent that it is operative against the Sixth Defendant and awarding costs to the Sixth Defendant for the Set Aside Application and Relief from Sanctions Application only (the âOrderâ)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant shall pay 50% of the Sixth Defendantâs sought costs, beingAED 188,131.85.
2. The Claimant shall pay the Sixth Defendantâs costs within 14 days from the date of this Order pursuant to Rule 38.40 of the DIFC Court Rules.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 25 March 2026
At: 12pmSCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. Following the issuance of the Order, in particular paragraph 3 of the summary, the Sixth Defendant (hence, âSixth Defendantâ) filed his costs submissions dated 29 January 2026, with the Claimant responding in opposition on 3 February 2026.
2. The Sixth Defendant seeks costs to the quantum of AED 376,263.70, covering both the Set Aside Application and Relief from Sanctions Application (hence, âApplicationsâ), for works done by five practitioners ranging from 2 to 21 yearsâ experience. In comparison to the guidance provided by the Registrarâs Direction No. 1 of 2023, the hourly fees charged by the aforementioned practitioners are below the expected range.
3. In summary, the Claimantâs opposition is that the costs sought are incompatible with Rules 38.18 and 38.21(1) of Rules of the DIFC Courts (âRDCâ), as, in consideration of all circumstances relating to the Applications, costs sought are disproportionately excessive in comparison to the matters in issue.
4. The Claimant rejects the Sixth Defendant's use of five practitioners over for two Applications, particularly as only two fee earners attended the Hearing and there was no complexity or logistical necessity at the Hearing or in the bundle that would justify costs for five practitioners. Further, the most senior practitioners failed to properly delegate tasks to more junior practitioners, artificially increasing costs, without proper justification. The Sixth Defendant did not produce a significantly higher volume of work; the Sixth Defendant filed two witness statements comprising a total of 23 pages, whereas the Claimant filed two witness statements totalling 21 pages, yet the Claimantâs costs as submitted on 7 July 2025 only amount to AED 150,393.70.
5. Further, the Sixth Defendant relies on the length of proceedings prior to the Hearing and the contextual matters important for the practitioners to understand in order to explain some of the additional AED 225,870 sought in comparison to the Claimant. However, the Order, at paragraph 3, was clear in that costs were only awarded for the Applications. Therefore, the Court ought to only consider what was reasonably practicable for the Applications in isolation. Finally, the Claimant suggests that AED 150,000 is a proportionate recoverable costs quantum.
6. I concur with the Claimantâs observations of the Sixth Defendantâs sought costs. My Order was clear in limiting costs to the Applications only, and therefore I will only consider what is reasonable for costs incurred for what are relatively straightforward applications that do not carry particular legal complexity necessary for five practitioners. Further, as recognised at paragraph 2 of the reasons of the Order, âThe Applications are materially similar. The Relief from Sanctions Application essentially acts to correct the procedural issues in the Set Aside Applicationâ. I do not find that the Claimant ought to be liable for costs unnecessarily incurred for the Sixth Defendantâs mistake.
7. I cannot identify a justifiable reason as to why the Sixth Defendantâs costs vastly exceed the Claimantâs costs dated 7 July 2025. No explanation is given as to why five practitioners, with the majority of the works done by the most senior practitioners, were needed by the Sixth Defendant for the Applications- logically, there should not have been a procedural filing mistake in this instance- when the Claimant was able to engage in the Hearing with less than half of the costs incurred by comparison.
8. When taking into account all circumstances, in my view, half of the sought costs are proportionate to be awarded to the Sixth Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant shall pay the Defendant AED 188,131.85 in costs for the Applications.