 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Bank Of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v (1) Neopharma LLC (2) NMC Healthcare LLC (3) New Medical Centre LLC (4) Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2025] DIFC CFI 043 (14 January 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2025/DCFI_043.html Cite as: [2025] DIFC CFI 43, [2025] DIFC CFI 043 |
||
[New search] [Help]
CFI 043/2020 Bank Of Baroda (DIFC Branch) v (1) Neopharma LLC (2) NMC Healthcare LLC (3) New Medical Centre LLC (4) Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty
January 14, 2025 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 043/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
BANK OF BARODA (DIFC BRANCH)
Claimant
and
(1) NEOPHARMA LLC
(2) NMC HEALTHCARE LLC
(3) NEW MEDICAL CENTRE LLC
(4) BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTYDefendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. CHIEF JUSTICE WAYNE MARTIN
UPON the Order of H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin dated 25 November 2024 with reasons published on 13 January 2025 (the “Order of 25 November 2024”)
AND UPON the parties’ submissions on costs
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The costs payable to the Claimant by the Fourth Defendant pursuant to order 3 of the Order of 25 November 2024 are assessed in the amount of USD 344,104.74.
2. If the costs the subject of the preceding order are not paid within fourteen (14) days, interest will accrue on the amount outstanding from that date until the costs are paid in full at the rate applicable to judgments of the Court from time to time.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 14 January 2025
At: 12pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Introduction
1. At the conclusion of the trial on this matter on 25 November 2024, I ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the Claimant (the “Bank”) against the Fourth Defendant (“Mr Shetty”) in the amount of USD 33,248,029.70.
2. I also ordered that Mr Shetty pay the Bank’s costs of the proceedings against him to be immediately assessed in accordance with a procedure and timetable which I directed.
3. In accordance with those directions, the Bank filed a revised Statement of Costs, as the Statement of Costs filed prior to the trial was incomplete. Mr Shetty has filed objections to the revised Statement of Costs and the Bank has filed a reply to those objections, in which two of the objections were conceded.
Analysis
4. The revised Statement of Costs groups the costs claimed under various headings. It is convenient to deal with the contentious issues by reference to the various groupings of costs, in the order in which they are set out in the revised Statement.
Legal fees
5. The Bank claims a total of USD 189,900 in respect of time spent by its lawyers attending on the Bank, attending on Mr Shetty’s representatives, working on documents and attending at hearings. Mr Shetty does not object to the hourly rates claimed and notes that they are in line with the Registrar’s Practice Direction No. 1 of 2023. However, Mr Shetty asserts that the hours claimed are excessive, both viewed on their own and having regard to the items also claimed as part of the expenses claim, which includes “professional fees” in respect of various applications and procedures. The distinction between the amounts claimed by reason of professional time spent on the various categories of work to which I have referred, and the “professional fees” claimed as expenses is not at all clear from the Statement of Costs and was not explained in the Bank’s Reply, despite being expressly challenged by Mr Shetty in his objections.
6. There is force in Mr Shetty’s criticism of the claim for USD 189,900. The total hours making up that claim are in the vicinity of 220, which appears to me to be excessive for a case which was resolved after a trial of one day, given that the Bank called only one witness of fact, whose evidence was essentially limited to the production of documents, and an expert witness whose fees are separately claimed. The claim for legal fees should be discounted and allowed at USD 150,000.
Expenses – court fees
7. The Bank claims USD 91,426.37 in relation to fees paid to the DIFC Courts. Mr Shetty has no objection to the amount claimed, which will be allowed in full.
Expenses – barristers fees
8. The Bank claims a total of USD 88,289.76 in respect of fees paid to senior counsel who represented the Bank on the application for immediate judgment and at trial. Mr Shetty asserts that the amount claimed is “exorbitant and unsubstantiated”, having regard to the amounts claimed in respect of the time spent by the solicitors representing the Bank.
9. The Bank has provided a copy of senior counsel’s invoice, which indicates that counsel charged two fees on brief, each of GBP 30,000 – the first in respect of the application for immediate judgment, and the second in respect of the trial. This case merited the engagement of senior counsel in addition to the solicitors representing the Bank, and the fees on brief appear to be reasonable and within market range.
10. However, counsel’s invoice indicates that her fees also include an amount of GBP 2,500 in respect of work done after the trial relating to the prospect of claims for costs against third parties. Those costs are not covered by the order which I made at trial and should be excluded. I will therefore allow the claim for counsel’s fees in the amount of USD 85,000
Expenses – expert fees
11. The Bank claims USD 17,678.37 in respect of fees paid to its expert witness. Mr Shetty has no objection to this claim, which is allowed in full.
Expenses – “wasted cost”
12. The Bank claimed USD 59,814.13 in respect of amounts which it was ordered to pay to Mr Shetty by reason of the Bank’s amendment to the Particulars of Claim. Mr Shetty objected to this claim, and the Bank accepts that the objection is sound. This component of the Bank’s claim is therefore dismissed in its entirety.
Expenses – legal fees
13. I have referred already to this head of claim and the uncertainty as to why amounts are claimed under this heading in addition to those claimed in respect of legal expenses. The amounts claimed include USD 8,713.41 in respect of costs incurred in the On-Shore Courts of Dubai in relation to execution. Mr Shetty objected to this claim, and the Bank has conceded the objection. That amount is therefore disallowed.
14. The Bank also claims USD 14,772.77 in respect of professional fees in relation to an application to amend the Statement of Case. There is no reason why Mr Shetty should pay for the costs incurred in this regard, and this aspect of the claim is also disallowed in full.
15. The Bank also claims USD 1,361.66 in respect of a legal opinion from a local lawyer. No explanation has been provided as to why such an opinion was necessary. If the opinion was concerned with execution in the On-Shore Courts of Dubai, it is not covered by the costs order which I made. This amount should also be disallowed in full.
16. After the disallowance of these amounts, an amount of a little less than USD 23,000 remains in respect of “professional fees”. Mr Shetty objects to these claims on the basis that they duplicate the amounts claimed as part of the legal fees already referred to above. The Bank made no response to this objection in its reply, and has failed to explain why this amount is claimed over and above the legal fees claimed by reference to hours spent working on the case. In the absence of any such explanation, I do not consider that the Bank has discharged the burden of proving that the amounts claimed were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Accordingly, this component of the Bank’s claim is disallowed in full.
Conclusion
17. The amounts which I have allowed total USD 344,104.74, and Mr Shetty will be ordered to pay the Bank’s costs in that amount.