Source: https://www.difccourts.ae/2010/08/15/cfi-0072008-order-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:36:33+00:00

Document:
1. These proceedings began in 2008 (Claim No. 007/2008). The Claimant is a former employee of the Defendant. The Defendant is now in liquidation and subject to other proceedings before the Court.
(4) As regards to Costs, the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs down to and including 8 April 2009 (with two exceptions, not material for present purposes); the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs from 8 April down to and including 21 June 2009 (with one such exception); no order as to costs incurred by either party after 21 June 2009; and all such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
(1) The Claimant may immediately apply to the Registrar of the DIFC Courts for payment of the AED 50,000 held in DIFC Courts’ escrow account pursuant to the Order of Justice Sir John Chadwick dated 20 August 2009.
(2) The Claimant’s costs of the proceedings in CFl 007/2008 pursuant to the Order of Justice Sir John Chadwick dated 20 August 2009 are assessed in the amount of AED 43,250.
(3) The Claimant’s costs of the Detailed Assessment proceedings of 28 October and 3 November 2009 are assessed on a summary basis in the amount of AED 26,865.
(4) The Defendant’s costs of proceedings in CFl 007/2008 pursuant to the Order of Justice Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob dated 23 April 2009 are assessed at AED 45,955.50.
(5) The Defendant’s costs of the Detailed Assessment proceedings of 23 November 2009 are assessed on a summary basis in the amount of AED 17,000.
(6) Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Order of 20 August 2009, the amounts owing to each party are hereby set off, with the balance of AED 7,159.50 to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant within 14 days of this Order.
(7) Each party to bear their own costs of Application No. 079/2009 and the Appeal heard on 10 February 2010.
(8) Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Order of 20 August 2009 the Defendant is liable to pay to the Claimant interest at the rate of 2.9% (EIBOR +1%) on the sum of AED 200,000 for the period 5 July 2009 to 31 August 2009 as date of payment.
(9) There is no order in respect of the interest on costs.
(f) As part of the said assessment, H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi held that the Claimant, who is a solicitor, was entitled to recover AED 50 per hour for her time spent in connection with the case, the rate which he held was appropriate for a litigant in person.
(c) Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order dated 10 February 2010, as summarized above; she contends that she should be allowed the rate appropriate for a legal practitioner, which she submits is more than AED 2,500 per hour.
1. Vary Order made on 20 August 2009 by revoking order 4, 5, 6, 7(ii) and 8.
2. Make an Order to disallow all of the Defendant’s costs in these proceedings and pursuant to and arising from the Order made on 20 August 2009 and the hearing on 10 February 2010.
5. On 10 June 2010, Chief Justice Anthony Evans issued written grounds dismissing Application No. 17 of 2010 in its entirety.
6. By way of Applications No. 44 and 45 of 2010 (“the Applications”), the Claimant now seeks from the Court of Appeal an extension of time and permission to appeal against paragraphs 2 to 9 of H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order dated 10 February 2010 (set out in paragraph 2(e) above).
7. Application No. 44 of 2010 prays for extension of time and permission to appeal against paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 of H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order dated 10 February 2010. The Claimant provided the grounds of this Application, which can be summarized as follows. H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi had exercised his discretion wrongly in assessing the quantum of the Claimant’s costs by failing to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances of the case, and had refused to allow the Claimant the right to make proper submissions in that regard. One way in which H.E. Justice Omar A! Muhairi had exercised his discretion wrongly, the Claimant contends, was in applying a blanket rate of AED 50 across all of the Claimant’s costs as a litigant in person.
8. Application No. 45 of 2010 prays for extension of time and permission to appeal against paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order dated 10 February 2010. Paragraphs 7 and 9 are also the subject of appeal in Application No. 44 of 2010. The Claimant provided the grounds of this Application, which can be summarized as follows. In so far as paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 are concerned, H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi had exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to have proper regard to the Defendant’s breach or contempt of court when exercising his discretion, and failed to take into account the financial position of the Claimant. In so far as paragraphs 8 and 9 are concerned, the Claimant alleges that she has not been heard.
9. It is immediately apparent that, by way of Application No. 17 of 2010 dated 25 February 2010, the appellant had already sought leave to appeal against H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order of 10 February 2010. That Application was dismissed in its entirety. At first blush, it may not be proper to entertain another Application for leave to appeal against that same Order, albeit on different grounds, because that would be tantamount to a second bite of the proverbial cherry for the Applicant.
10. It may therefore be said that the Applicant ought to have canvassed all grounds of appeal against H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi’s Order of 10 February 2010 in Application No. 17 of 2010. It is critical that no reason was furnished as to why that could not have been done. It may be inimical to the finality of litigation if an Applicant first identified specific directions in an Order to appeal against, and when proven unsuccessful, file a fresh application to appeal against other directions in that same Order. This is an adage recognized since Henderson v Henderson 3 Hare 100.
14. I also pause to observe that whilst these authorities are not binding upon this Court, they have persuasive value. Be that as it may, whilst I observe that Henderson v Henderson abuse of process (as recast by Johnson) may be triggered on the present facts, I need not go so far as to reach a conclusive finding on that ground.
(c) She was sick for an extended period of time.
16. The Applications were made on 15 June 2010. The hearing before H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi took place on 10 February 2010. His Order was issued on 4 April 2010. Even after taking into account the delay in the issuance of the said Order, more than two months had elapsed before the Applications were made. The Applicant must have already known some, if not all, of the directions made after that hearing, since she had sought leave by way of Application No. 17 of 2010 of 25 February 2010 to appeal against one of those directions made at that hearing.
17. There is no reason why the delay in the issuance of the transcript would prevent the Applicant from filing a protective Application within the prescribed time limits. Nor was any medical certificate furnished by anyone to explain why the Applicant was unable to meet the prescribed time limits. More critically, this is not the first time an extension of time to appeal has been sought by the Applicant in this matter. In Application No. 17 of 2010, the Applicant was out of time by more than four months, and her application for an extension of time was refused. One would have thought that the Applicant would have been more prudent in filing further applications. Allowing the time extension sought in the present Applications would make a mockery of the time lines prescribed by the Rules of Court.
18. In view of these circumstances which I have carefully considered, I dismiss the application for an extension of time to appeal in both Applications. It is therefore unnecessary for me to deal with the remaining prayers of the Applications. Applications No. 44 and 45 of 2010 are therefore dismissed in its entirety.

References: Application No. 079
 Application No. 17
 Application No. 44
 Application No. 45
 Application No. 44
 Application No. 17
 Application No. 17
 Application No. 17
 Application No. 17