I Want to Withdraw My DIFC Claim: What Will It Cost?

You can generally discontinue a DIFC claim, but the usual consequence is liability for the defendant's costs up to service of the notice. Some claims need permission or written consent first. If you only want to withdraw an application within the case, a Part 34 notice is not the correct shortcut.

The immediate question is therefore not just whether to stop. It is what will end, what liabilities will remain and whether you intend to bring the dispute back. This guide concerns discontinuance in ordinary DIFC Court of First Instance proceedings. It does not describe the separate Small Claims Tribunal or probate procedures.

What exactly do you want to discontinue in your DIFC claim?

RDC Part 34 distinguishes discontinuing a claim from abandoning one of several remedies while continuing to seek the others. Under RDC 34.2, the latter is not treated as discontinuance for this Part. A request for a declaration may disappear while a damages claim continues. Identify the actual proposed change rather than selecting a form because its title sounds suitable.

Prepare a marked copy of the current claim showing the parties, allegations and relief that would remain. That is a practical aid, not a prescribed substitute for the correct procedural document. It can expose an inconsistency early, such as a proposal to discontinue against one company while leaving a requested order directed only at that company.

The reason for stopping also matters to the commercial decision. New evidence may undermine the claim. Recovery may no longer justify the expense. An opponent may have performed what was requested. These situations can all make withdrawal sensible, but they do not produce the same costs argument. Keep the reason and its supporting documents separate from the mechanics of ending the proceedings.

Do you need the court's permission or another party's consent?

RDC 34.3 supplies the general right to discontinue all or part of a claim at any time. RDC 34.4 then imposes important exceptions. Court permission is required where an interim injunction has been granted in relation to the claim or a party has given an undertaking to the court. Do not treat the proposed notice as a way of disposing of the consequences of that earlier protection.

Where you have received an interim payment, discontinuing the relevant claim requires either the paying defendant's written consent or the court's permission. Where there are several claimants, the others must consent in writing or permission must be obtained. The payment and multiple-claimant exceptions therefore allow a consent route, while the injunction and undertaking provision calls for court permission.

For a permission application, ask your representative to address the existing orders expressly. The practical questions may include what should happen to an injunction, money held under an order or a reserved costs issue. The answers depend on the order and the application. This guide does not assume that discontinuance automatically releases every obligation arising during the case.

If a company is the claimant, confirm the internal authority for ending its claim before instructions are given. Record who approved the decision and the financial assumptions considered. This is governance preparation, not a statement that every company must pass the same resolution or use the same approval process.

How does the notice bring the claim to an end?

Where the necessary permission or consent requirements have been addressed, RDC 34.6 requires both filing a notice and serving it on every other party. RDC 34.7 requires the filed notice to state that every other party has been served. Required consents must be attached, and a notice concerning only some defendants must identify them.

Where the court's permission is not needed, RDC 34.12 provides that discontinuance against a defendant takes effect when the notice is served on that defendant. Filing and service are therefore not interchangeable. Ask for the actual service record and check the recipient, method and date against the applicable service requirements. An internal decision, an unsent draft or a negotiation email should not be treated as proof that the proceedings have ended.

RDC 34.10 and 34.11 allow a defendant to apply to set aside a notice, with the stated limit of 28 days after service on that defendant. The article does not attempt to predict when such an application would succeed. The existence of the procedure matters when deciding whether you can safely assume that a disputed exit is final.

Costs proceedings remain possible under RDC 34.14 even though the substantive proceedings have ended against the relevant defendant. Keep a separate diary for any costs directions. Do not close the file administratively while a costs hearing, payment date or assessment remains outstanding.

Key takeaway. A notice can end the substantive claim without ending the dispute about its expense. Verify service and the remaining orders before treating the case as closed.

Where different defendants are involved, create a party-by-party record. It should identify the claim discontinued, the service evidence and the costs position for each. This is especially useful where one defendant has agreed terms and another disputes liability for costs.

Why might you still pay costs after obtaining what you wanted?

RDC 34.15 makes the discontinuing claimant liable for the defendant's costs incurred up to and including service of the notice unless the court orders otherwise. A belief that the proceedings achieved a useful commercial result is not itself an order departing from that starting point.

In Limsa v Lordon, amended judgment of 19 May 2020, a claimant withdrew proceedings concerning a decision it had characterised as an arbitral award. It nevertheless sought costs from the defendants. The court held that the claimant had not displaced the Part 34 costs presumption and ordered it to pay the defendants' costs. The reasons addressed the claimant's continued pursuit of proceedings despite clarification and the lack of jurisdiction for its claim.

The amended order fixed costs for the second to fourth defendants and required a payment into court towards the first defendant's costs, with the balance to be assessed if not agreed. It did not declare withdrawal cost-free because a perceived threat had receded. Nor did it decide the underlying trading dispute in the claimant's favour.

For your own decision, assemble a dated chronology of the event said to justify a different costs order. Identify what the opponent did, when you learned of it and what litigation expense was incurred afterwards. Distinguish a genuine change in position from clarification of a position already available before proceedings started.

That chronology is preparation for a fact-specific costs argument, not a guarantee that the court will reverse the normal outcome. Discuss its likely strength before spending heavily on a contested costs hearing. The withdrawal decision should account for the expense of arguing about costs as well as the expense avoided by stopping the main claim.

What should an agreed exit say about money and remaining issues?

A proposed agreement should distinguish your own lawyers' charges, the opponent's costs and any money already paid or held under an order. Combining them in an unexplained total creates avoidable uncertainty. Ask whether the proposed figure settles all costs or is only a payment towards a sum still to be determined.

Consider, as an editorial example, an offer to discontinue on the basis that each party bears its own costs. The useful question is whether the other side has actually agreed that term and how it will be recorded in the procedural outcome. An unanswered proposal should not be entered in your budget as an agreed waiver.

Where only part of the proceedings is discontinued, RDC 34.15 limits the default liability to costs relating to that part. Unless the court orders otherwise, assessment waits until the rest of the proceedings concludes. Identify work that relates only to the abandoned issue and work that remains relevant to the surviving case. That distinction can be difficult where the same witnesses and documents serve several allegations.

There is a further risk where part continues. Under RDC 34.17 and 34.18, the court may stay the remainder if the claimant fails to pay the relevant costs within 14 days of agreement on the sum or the order requiring payment. A partial exit can therefore affect the progress of the claim you still want to pursue.

This is a reason to agree realistic payment arrangements and diary the actual order. It is not a reason to assume that every late payment automatically ends the remaining case. The rule concerns the court's power to stay, not an automatic dismissal of the underlying claim.

Can you withdraw an application or return with a better claim?

Do not use Part 34 indiscriminately for an application within ongoing proceedings. In Alarabi Investments v Cron AI, order with reasons of 26 June 2026, a defendant tried to discontinue its application to set aside a default judgment. The court held that the notice had no effect. Part 34 concerned an originating claim or part of one, not that interlocutory application.

The court identified consent, amendment or an application for permission to withdraw as the relevant routes. It ultimately permitted withdrawal on conditions, including deadlines affecting a renewed application and payment of costs. The decision is a warning against substituting a discontinuance notice for a withdrawal application, not a universal permission to replace a defective application whenever convenient.

Starting another claim raises a separate issue. RDC 34.16 requires permission where you discontinued after a defence was filed and the new claim against the same defendant arises from the same or substantially the same facts. Both conditions matter. A new title or a more polished description does not by itself answer the factual-overlap question.

Before discontinuing, show your adviser any planned replacement claim. Compare the parties, transaction, alleged wrong and relief sought. Keep that assessment separate from questions about time limits and any settlement release. The absence of a Part 34.16 permission requirement would not, by itself, establish that a later claim is otherwise valid.

Common mistake. Treating withdrawal as a reset button can leave costs unpaid and the intended replacement subject to a permission requirement. Assess the next step before ending the present one.

What should you settle with your adviser before giving instructions?

1. Identify precisely the claim, part, party or application you intend to stop.
2. Review every relevant injunction, undertaking, interim payment and co-claimant position.
3. Obtain a costs estimate separating accrued exposure from the expense of completing the exit.
4. Decide whether to seek agreed costs terms or a different order and identify the supporting evidence.
5. Check any intended replacement claim before committing to discontinuance.
6. Confirm the proper filing, service and order requirements, then retain proof of completion.

Ask for a short written comparison of continuing, narrowing and stopping. It need not predict the outcome with false precision. It should explain the next material expense, the evidence still missing and the costs consequences of the proposed route. A decision based only on what has already been spent risks overlooking the liabilities created by the exit itself.

Keep the closing instruction specific. For example, distinguish authority to negotiate an exit from authority to file a notice immediately. That distinction helps avoid a notice being served while essential costs terms remain unresolved. After the step is taken, obtain the filed document, service record and any resulting order for the company or personal file.

Sources checked on 1 October 2026. Obtain advice on the current rules, orders and circumstances before withdrawing proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I discontinue a DIFC claim without the defendant agreeing? Generally yes, but RDC 34.4 requires permission or specified written consents in certain circumstances, including injunctions, undertakings, interim payments and multiple claimants.

Does filing the notice immediately end the claim? Where permission is not required, discontinuance against a defendant takes effect on service, not merely filing. The rules also allow an application to set aside the notice.

Will I normally pay the defendant's costs? Yes. RDC 34.15 applies that default up to and including service unless the court orders otherwise.

Can the court still hear a costs dispute after discontinuance? Yes. RDC 34.14 preserves proceedings concerning costs despite the end of the substantive claim.

Can I discontinue against only one defendant? Yes. The notice must identify the affected defendant, and the filing, service and any applicable permission requirements still need attention.

What if I only abandon one of several remedies? RDC 34.2 says that is not discontinuance for Part 34 where the claim continues for the other remedies. Check the appropriate way to record the change.

Can I use the same notice to withdraw a pending application? Do not assume so. Alarabi held the Part 34 notice ineffective for an interlocutory application and addressed withdrawal through the appropriate separate process.

Can I bring the same claim again later? Permission is required under RDC 34.16 if the claim was discontinued after a defence and the later claim against the same defendant arises from the same or substantially the same facts.

This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about the proceedings, costs and orders affecting your proposed withdrawal.

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.

• Your Lawyer's Bill Exceeds the Advance: Was the Fee Actually Capped?
• The Other Side Is Withholding Documents in Your DIFC Case
• New Evidence Changes Your DIFC Case: Can You Amend the Claim?