The ADGM court exercised its discretion in determining costs after A22 and B22 discontinued their claim against C22, considering the companies' partial success in opposing C22's jurisdiction challenge.
Decision
The court has broad discretion in determining costs under section 49 of the ADGM Courts Regulations and rule 195 of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules.
Facts
A22 and B22 sought a permanent anti-suit injunction to prevent C22 from continuing a proceeding in the onshore Abu Dhabi courts, but later discontinued their claim.
Issues before the court
- Whether the court should depart from the presumptive rule that a discontinuing party pays the costs of the opposing party.
- Whether the companies should bear the costs of defending the jurisdiction application.
The court's reasoning
The court considered the principles from Turcon v Assaf, which emphasized the need for flexibility in determining costs, and Afkar Capital Ltd v Fikry, which discussed the criteria for awarding indemnity costs.
Applicable law
- ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015, section 49
- ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016, rules 172, 195, 198 and 199
Practical implications
Parties should be aware that the court's broad discretion in costs matters can lead to varying outcomes, even after discontinuance.
Precedent value: The decision provides guidance on the court's discretion in determining costs after discontinuance.
Action point
Commercial litigants should review their litigation strategies in light of this decision.
Source
This case note is generated from a public court record and reviewed under the firm's automated editorial quality gate. General information only — it does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, please contact us.