CFI 058/2024 Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari
CFI 058/2024 Atul Dhawan Ashok Amir Chand Dhawan v Ramzi Wahib El Jaouhari
March 31, 2026  court of first instance - Orders
Claim No. CFI 058/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
ATUL DHAWAN ASHOK AMIR CHAND DHAWAN
Claimant
and
RAMZI WAHIB EL JAOUHARI
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART KC
UPON
the Part 7 Claim Form filed on 21 August 2024 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON
the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 29 October 2025
AND UPON
the Claimant filing Re-Amended Particulars of Claim on 12 November 2025
AND UPON
the Defendant filing a “Response to the Amended Statement of Claim” on 25 November 2025 (the “Defendant’s Amended Defence”)
AND UPON
the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-058-2024/3 dated 10 December 2025 for an extension of time to file a reply to the Defendant’s Amended Defence (the “Claimant’s Application”)
AND UPON
the Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 15 January 2025, as amended on 21 January 2026, granting the Claimant’s Application (the “Order”)
AND UPON
the Claimant’s costs submission dated 27 January 2026
AND UPON
the Defendant’s costs submission in reply dated 4 February 2026
AND PURSUANT TO
the Rules of the Courts of the DIFC (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s costs referred to in the Order are assessed in the sum of
AED 7,127.75
.
2. The Defendant is to pay such costs to the Claimant within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 31 March 2026
At: 11am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The relevant background is set out in the Order.
2. The costs sought are in the total amount of AED 7121.5 of which AED 1,121.75 is the Court fee. The balance is a claim for 3 hours at AED 2,000 per hour.
3. The sum is objected to on the basis that it was a straightforward procedural request and too much time was spent on it.
4. I do not consider that there is substance in this objection. The request for an extension should have been granted in the circumstances. When it was not, it inevitably led to a wholly unnecessary increase in costs.
5. This is a case where, in my view, both sides have been guilty of failing to consider the reasonableness and proportionality of the dispute and their actions. When this leads to unnecessary costs, they are likely to have to be paid.
6. The costs are assessed as claimed.