Your Opponent's DIFC Legal Bill Looks Excessive: What Can You Challenge?

An order to pay the opponent's costs does not necessarily make its entire bill payable without assessment. Start with the wording of the order, including any amount already fixed or due on account. A schedule containing several lawyers, repeated conferences or work on another dispute needs to be checked against that order.

Liability, the assessment basis and the present payment obligation are separate issues. The order may require a payment on account while the balance is assessed. Check which work is covered and what must be paid now before treating an objection to the final bill as a reason to withhold an ordered payment.

The costs decision following LXT Real Estate Broker LLC v SIR Real Estate LLC illustrates these distinctions. It also shows why losing an interim application does not automatically justify indemnity costs, even where the Court found no serious case to be tried.

Read the costs order before debating the hourly rates

Obtain the sealed order and any later variation. Identify the party entitled to costs, the proceeding or application covered, the assessment basis and payment directions. A demand from the opponent's lawyers is not a substitute for that document. Nor should a recollection of what was said at the hearing replace the written order.

Separate a challenge to the amount from a challenge to the underlying entitlement. If the order already determines liability, an assessment is not an opportunity to argue the entire lost application again. Ask the adviser which issue remains open and which would require a different procedural step.

Figure or direction	What to check	Common confusion
Amount claimed	The opponent's schedule or bill	Treating a requested figure as already assessed
Payment on account	The amount and date ordered	Assuming assessment means nothing is payable yet
Final assessed amount	The assessment or agreement and certificate	Ignoring payments already made
Scope of costs	The application, issues and period covered	Including unrelated work without analysis

Make a one-page chronology of the relevant applications and orders. Where several proceedings exist between the same businesses, label each with its claim number. This helps separate work on the application you lost from work that belongs to a different matter or a later stage.

What LXT shows about an immediate costs exposure

LXT unsuccessfully sought interim relief in standalone proceedings concerning use of a brokerage brand. In November 2023, the Court ordered it to pay the opponent's costs on the standard basis, to be assessed by the Registrar. The wider commercial dispute did not make that completed interim proceeding cost-free.

The opponent sought indemnity costs and a payment representing 70% of its AED 686,376.67 schedule. The Court instead ordered AED 343,188.33, representing 50%, payable within 14 days. That was an amount on account, not a finding that the entire schedule was recoverable or that the final bill was exactly half.

The Court also rejected the proposition that failure to establish a serious case, by itself, required indemnity costs. Allegations of abusive collateral purposes lacked sufficient evidence for determination. Standard assessment was ordered.

Key takeaway. The amount requested, the amount ordered on account and the final assessed costs can differ. Do not use one figure as though it answers all three questions.

The commercial litigation later generated other proceedings and orders. This article concerns the identified 2023 interim costs decision. It does not report a final assessment of that bill or a conclusion that every later claim between the parties failed.

Understand what standard and indemnity assessment change

Under RDC 38.17 to 38.20, neither basis permits unreasonable costs. Standard assessment also requires proportionality and resolves relevant doubts in favour of the paying party. Indemnity assessment resolves doubts about reasonableness in favour of the receiving party. It is not permission to recover every invoice without scrutiny.

Those differences affect how objections should be framed. On a standard assessment, identify why the work or amount is disproportionate as well as unreasonable where the evidence supports that position. On an indemnity assessment, do not assume the same proportionality and doubt rules apply unchanged.

Ask for an explanation tied to the actual order rather than an abstract description of the two labels. If an order is silent, the rules address the default assessment basis. If different applications attracted different orders, the bill may need to respect those distinctions instead of applying one label across everything.

This article concerns costs payable to an opponent under court proceedings. It is not a procedure for challenging your own lawyer's retainer or obtaining a contractual fee refund. It also should not be applied wholesale to the SCT, which has a separate, more restricted costs regime.

Turn the complaint into specific, testable objections

A statement that the bill is outrageous is difficult to assess. Work through it by item or coherent category. Identify the task, fee earner, time, rate and explanation supplied. Then say what is disputed and why. Keep arithmetic errors distinct from objections about necessity, duplication or the scope of the order.

For example, several lawyers may legitimately work on a complex hearing. The useful question is what each did and whether the claimed work was reasonably required. Repeated entries with identical descriptions deserve inquiry, but the mere presence of more than one fee earner does not establish duplication.

Compare the schedule with the procedural record. If costs are claimed for a hearing that was vacated, determine what preparation had already occurred and which order addresses the resulting expense. If drafting time appears unusually high, identify the document and its complexity rather than comparing page counts in isolation.

Do not assume your own lawyer's lower bill proves the opponent's bill is unreasonable. The parties may have had different tasks, evidence or procedural burdens. Your bill may provide useful context, but the objection should still explain the specific work under assessment.

Where the narrative is too vague to assess, identify what clarification is needed. Avoid demanding the opponent's entire confidential litigation file as though a costs dispute automatically gives access to every communication. Ask your adviser which supporting material can properly be sought or considered in the assessment.

Build a working spreadsheet with the item reference, claimed amount, objection, supporting record and proposed adjustment. This is a preparation tool, not a substitute for formal points of dispute. It allows commercial decision-makers to distinguish strong objections from amounts that may not justify a prolonged contest.

Keep the original bill version beside that spreadsheet. If a revised bill arrives, record which items changed and whether earlier objections still apply. This avoids negotiating against an outdated total or losing a valid objection when line numbers change.

Do not miss the detailed-assessment response deadline

Detailed assessment under Part 40 begins with service of the notice of commencement and bill. RDC 40.15 provides 21 days from service of that notice for serving points of dispute. Record the service date and obtain advice promptly on calculation, any directions and the required recipients.

Do not confuse a costs schedule sent before a hearing with a formal notice commencing detailed assessment. Both require attention, but the applicable response process may differ. Forward the entire email or served package, including attachments and transmission details, rather than only the page showing the total.

Late service can require permission to participate further. Absence of points of dispute can lead to a default costs certificate under the rules. At the assessment hearing, items not specified in the points ordinarily require permission to raise. A broad protest is therefore a poor substitute for a properly prepared response.

Deadline warning. Check the date of service of the notice of commencement. Negotiating over the bill does not, without an effective procedural arrangement or order, supply a new response deadline.

If you have already missed the period, tell the adviser immediately. Provide the service record, any reason for the delay and the current state of the assessment. Under rule 40.18, service of points of dispute before a default costs certificate is issued prevents the Court from issuing that certificate. That does not remove rule 40.16's requirement for permission to be heard further when points were served late. Have both matters addressed urgently. Do not assume that a late objection cures every consequence of the default.

An appeal does not automatically stay detailed assessment under RDC 40.2. If you intend to challenge the costs order or the underlying decision, ask separately whether a stay is needed and has been obtained. Keep the assessment timetable visible while that advice is sought.

Decide what to pay, dispute or negotiate

Prepare separate totals for amounts ordered now, amounts accepted in principle and amounts genuinely disputed. Reconcile any payment on account so it is not counted twice. An accurate payment record is useful whether the dispute ends by agreement or assessment.

If the order requires payment and cash flow is a problem, raise that issue separately from the assessment objections. A claim that the final bill is too large does not explain why an existing direction can be ignored. Ask what application or agreement would be necessary to change timing.

1. Read the costs order, scope, basis and any payment date.
2. Identify whether formal detailed assessment has commenced and record service.
3. Review the bill by task, amount and supporting explanation.
4. Prepare and serve proper points of dispute within the applicable timetable.
5. Compare a supported settlement proposal with the cost and risk of assessment, while complying with operative directions.

Before agreeing a global amount, clarify whether it includes the assessment proceedings themselves, taxes where properly applicable and any interest being claimed. Do not let a short email saying costs agreed leave those questions unresolved. The settlement should also identify what happens to any pending application or certificate request.

The receiving party benefits from the same discipline. A clear bill tied to the correct order is easier to evaluate than a lump-sum demand. If you won the application, preserving time records and explaining substantial work may help resolve costs without another expensive dispute.

The objective is not to relitigate the commercial disagreement through the lawyers' invoices. It is to establish what the order permits, identify any properly supported reductions and resolve the amount through the required process. LXT shows that even a decisive loss on interim relief leaves real distinctions between liability, assessment basis and the sum payable on account.

Sources were checked through 29 September 2026. The public later-history search was bounded, not an exhaustive appeal clearance. The identified payment on account is not reported as a final assessed bill.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an order to pay costs mean the whole bill is approved? Not necessarily. Read whether the amount was fixed, agreed or left for assessment. A claimed schedule and a final assessed amount are different.

Was AED 343,188.33 the final costs bill in LXT? No. It was the payment on account ordered while costs were to be assessed on the standard basis.

Does losing a weak application automatically mean indemnity costs? No. LXT expressly rejected that conclusion from the failure to establish a serious case alone.

Can unreasonable charges be challenged on an indemnity assessment? Yes. Indemnity assessment is not unrestricted recovery, although the treatment of doubts differs from standard assessment.

When must I serve points of dispute? RDC 40.15 specifies 21 days after service of the notice of commencement. Check the actual service record, applicable directions and calculation with your adviser.

Does an appeal automatically pause detailed assessment? No. RDC 40.2 says a court order is needed for a stay pending appeal.

Can I raise a new bill item for the first time at the hearing? Under RDC 40.35, items not specified in the points of dispute require permission. Prepare the response carefully rather than reserving all objections informally.

Is this the procedure for disputing my own lawyer's bill? No. The article concerns an opponent's recoverable litigation costs. A retainer dispute or fee-refund claim requires its own analysis.

This article is general information and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about the costs order, assessment timetable and bill in your matter.

Related Guides

Our DIFC Court disputes page covers jurisdiction, service, default judgment and setting aside, immediate judgment, disclosure, costs and appeals under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.

• You Started a DIFC Claim and Now Face a Security for Costs Demand
• Your Dubai Lawyer Promised a Fee Refund but Has Not Paid
• My DIFC Freezing Order Stops Me Paying Rent and Legal Fees