United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates

The DIFC court rules provide the court with considerable discretion when it comes to making orders as to costs. However, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be responsible for settling some part of the successful party's costs, and generally, any court fees that party has incurred. The court must have regard to all the circumstances when making an order as to costs. This includes consideration of the degree of success of the cases of the parties, their conduct during the proceedings and any offers to settle. There is also potential for the DIFC court to make no order as to costs. This is usually where the DIFC court finds that the merits of each party's case are balanced.

The DIFC court will assess the amount of costs due to the successful party on either a standard or indemnity basis. Where costs are assessed on the standard basis, the court will:

  • only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue to be recovered; and
  • resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable and proportionate in amount in favor of the paying party.

On the other hand, where costs are assessed on an indemnity basis, any doubt as to whether costs had been reasonably incurred or are reasonable and proportionate in amount is interpreted in favor of the successful party.

It is also worth noting that the DIFC court is empowered to issue an interim costs order in favor of a party. These costs orders will usually reflect 50% of the costs incurred by the party, or what the court believes is the minimum it will recover.

The ADGM court rules, although somewhat less extensive than the DIFC court rules on costs and their recovery, broadly follow the framework of the DIFC court rules.

Each of the DIFC and ADGM courts have fee schedules relating to court proceedings and applications that are updated on a regular basis. There are a number of fees applicable to a claim including filing fees, application fees and hearing fees.

For substantive claims, and in general, fees are calculated on claim and counterclaim values and expressed as a lump sum plus a percentage.

At the time of writing (December 2023):

  • the DIFC court fees for money and/or property claims were:            

CLAIM VALUE

FEE

Up to and including USD500,000

5% of the value of the claim and/or the property with a minimum of USD1,500

USD500,000-USD1 million

USD25,000 + 1% over USD500,000

USD1 million-USD5 million

USD30,000 + 0.5% over USD1 million

USD4 million-USD10 million

USD50,000 + 0.4% over USD5 million

USD10 million-USD50 million

USD70,000 + 0.15% over USD10 million

Over USD50 million

USD130,000

 

  • the ADGM court fees for money and/or property claims were:

CLAIM VALUE

FEE

USD100,001-USD500,000

3% of the value of the claim

USD500,000-USD1 million

USD15,000 + 2%

USD1 million-USD 5 million

USD25,000 + 0.6%

USD5,000,001 - USD10 million

USD49,000 + 0.4%

USD10 million

USD69,000 + 0.15% to a maximum of USD99,000

All other claims

USD4,000



Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Austria

Austria

The Austrian civil procedure law provides a system of cost reimbursement. The unsuccessful party is required to reimburse the costs of the prevailing party; however, this is limited to costs that are necessarily incurred. The procedural costs are divided into court fees (which include the fees and expenses of witnesses, court-appointed experts and court interpreters), legal fees (e.g. fees of legal representation) and party expenses (which predominantly consist of travel expenses and loss of earnings due to attendance in court).

Court fees are subject to the Court Fees Act (Gerichtsgebührengesetz) and calculated on a graduated scale in accordance with the amount in dispute. Moreover, the costs depend on the court where the proceedings are pending. In cases involving amounts in dispute exceeding EUR350,000, court fees for first instance proceedings are 1.2% of the amount in dispute, plus EUR4,203. Court fees for appeal proceedings are calculated separately but are also based on the amount in dispute. The unsuccessful party is obliged to reimburse the court costs, but only to the degree prescribed in the Attorneys' Fees Act (Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz).

As an exception to the principle that the unsuccessful party is to pay the procedural costs, the court can, in certain circumstances, also oblige one party to bear the costs of the entire proceedings or of a certain phase of the proceedings, regardless of whether that party was successful.

Last modified 7 Jul 2023

Australia

Australia

Australian courts have wide discretion to award costs orders against either party to cover the opposing party's costs of litigation. The general rule is that costs follow the event. This means that the unsuccessful party will be liable to pay the litigation costs of the successful party. The aim of this rule is to achieve a just outcome by shifting the costs burden on to the party which is found to have either unjustifiably brought another party before the court or given another party cause to have recourse to the court to obtain their rights.

Where each litigant has enjoyed some success in the proceedings, courts may modify the general rule to make costs orders that reflect the litigants' relative success and failure. Courts may depart from the general rule by requiring a successful party to bear their own costs where there is good cause to do so. Such an outcome may be justified where, for example, a successful plaintiff is awarded only nominal damages, or a party succeeds only due to late and substantial amendments to their case.

Of particular strategic importance is the rule that generally a court will not award costs to a successful party which has obtained relief no more favourable than had already been offered by his or her opponent in settlement discussions. This rule is designed to encourage the early resolution of litigated disputes.

Costs orders are subject to a costs assessment process administered by the courts. It is unusual that a party will be able to recover all of its actual legal costs through this process. On a standard assessment, parties may recover approximately 60% to 75% of their actual costs. A higher rate of assessment, on an indemnity basis, may be employed where a party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the proceeding.

All courts in Australia will charge fees for commencing civil proceedings (often referred to as a filing fee). Some jurisdictions, particularly superior courts, will also charge additional fees including but not limited to daily hearing fees (calculated by reference to the length of the trial), filing fees for notices of motions/applications and the issuing of subpoenas to third parties. These fees are set by the courts and are published on their websites. They are usually reviewed on a yearly basis. By way of example, the current rate (effective from 1 July 2023) for commencing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia is AUD4,760 for corporations and the daily hearing fee for corporations can range from AUD3,180 (for the first four days) and AUD16,945 (for the 15th and subsequent days).

Last modified 14 Feb 2024

Belgium

Belgium

The court will order the unsuccessful party to bear the legal costs of the successful party, subject to a general discretion to make some other costs order. Where, for instance, the plaintiff claimed EUR100,000 in damages but was ultimately only awarded EUR30,000, the court could decide that costs should be split between both parties.

The costs relating to civil proceedings in Belgium are, at least in comparison to some other jurisdictions, fairly modest. The most noteworthy costs are the following:

  • The bailiff costs for serving the writ of summons on the defendant or to have the court's judgment served, which is generally around EUR300 (but could be higher if, for example, the summons is to be served abroad).
  • The court fee (rolrecht/droit de rôle), which is essentially a tax or duty, of EUR165 for most proceedings at the first instance level and EUR400 for cases before the Court of Appeal. The court fee will be collected by the Federal Tax Authorities (Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën/Service Public Fédéral Finances).
  • The fees and costs of a court-appointed expert or mediator.
  • The fixed statutory compensation for legal representation (rechtsplegingsvergoeding/indemnité de procedure), which is based on the value of the case and can exceptionally be decreased or increased by the court depending on the particulars of the case, such as complexity or the limited financial means of the party ordered to pay costs. Legal representation costs are capped by statute in accordance with a scale set by a Royal Decree. For cases with a value of over EUR1,000,000, the standard amount is EUR22,500 and can in any event not be higher than EUR45,000. In the majority of cases, this compensation only covers part of a party's lawyers' fees.

Furthermore, barring a few exceptions, judgments must be registered with the Tax Authorities and, at that stage, registration duties become payable. The registration fee is 3% of the principal amount that the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay and is levied when the successful party requests an authenticated copy of the judgment (which it will need in order to serve the judgment on the unsuccessful party).

Finally, the costs relating to the enforcement of a judgment are borne by party against whom enforcement is sought. Enforcement costs do not include lawyers' fees.

Last modified 20 Oct 2023

Bahrain

Bahrain

The costs of litigation in Bahrain can be divided into translation fees (if any), court fees (which include court appointed expert fees) and lawyers’ fees. 

Court fees are deemed to include: 

  • claim registration fees. When submitting a statement of claim to the competent court, the party must pay a court fee of approximately 2.5% of the claim amount to the clerk of the court; and
  • expert fees, which will be subject to the court’s discretion and vary on a case-by-case basis. 

Legal and other fees (such as translation fees) are not included in court fees.

The competent court has the authority to award costs, including lawyers’ fees, to be paid by the unsuccessful party. The Bahrain courts usually order the losing party to bear the court fees; legal and other fees are determined based at the sole discretion of the court. In practice, where any fees (other than court fees) are awarded, they are minimal and do not reflect the actual legal (or other) costs incurred by a party. Generally, the fees that are awarded in this regard are less than USD600. 

If both parties are unsuccessful in their claims, the competent court has the discretion to rule that either: 

  • each party will bear the costs that they have incurred; or
  • the total costs will be divided between the two parties; or
  • one of the parties will bear the total costs.

Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Brazil

Brazil

In Brazil, the unsuccessful party will be responsible for paying the litigation costs of the successful party. These litigation costs include:

  • the judicial fees; and
  • the other party’s attorney’s fees. 

The judicial fees vary in each state. In civil litigation cases, attorney’s fees will be fixed at minimum 10% and maximum 20% of the amount awarded in the judgment, the economic advantage of the party or, if it is not possible to measure it, of the total amount in dispute. Even though it is not common, the fees can be fixed at a lower rate in certain situations (for example, when the claim is dismissed).

When awarding attorney’s fees, the judge will consider:

  • the length of the proceedings;
  • the nature of the claim;
  • the professional attention to the case;
  • the place where the service was performed; and
  • the work provided by the lawyers.

The criteria for deciding the amount to be paid for attorney’s fees comprise subjective elements, including the degree of professional attention to the case. In general terms, it is possible to consider that an attorney who has adopted a proactive approach in the lawsuit (e.g. the attorney has complied with the judicial requests in a timely manner, provided the necessary documents and evidence in order to guarantee a better quality of judicial decisions and has cooperated with the opposing party’s attorney) is considered to have a high degree of attention to the case.

Finally, if the party is only partially successful, the courts may order a different percentage of the amount under dispute to be paid to each attorney based on the parties’ relative success or failure in the lawsuit.

Last modified 17 Oct 2023

Canada

Canada

Where a party to a Canadian proceeding is successful in obtaining relief in the proceeding (or in some interlocutory step in the proceeding, such as on a motion), the court will generally require any parties that opposed the relief to pay a portion of the successful party’s costs, namely, legal fees and disbursements (e.g. photocopying expenses, process server fees, experts’ fees, etc.). 

Where the parties have had partial success in the proceeding (or some step in the proceeding), courts may award costs having regard to the parties’ relative success. Though it happens rarely, courts may decline to award a successful party its costs where the court finds that the successful party’s conduct was objectionable. 

It is unusual that a successful party will recover all of its costs from the opposing parties. By default, a successful party is entitled to costs on a partial indemnity or party-and-party basis. While there are variations among jurisdictions and across levels of court, costs on a partial indemnity basis are typically 25-50% of the successful party's actual legal costs. In rare circumstances, parties may recover costs on a substantial indemnity or solicitor-and-client basis. Where this is the case, the successful party may be awarded 60-75% of its actual legal costs. Substantial indemnity costs may be awarded where the conduct of the unsuccessful party was reprehensible (as might be the case where an unsuccessful plaintiff’s accusations of fraud were found to be completely devoid of merit, or where the conduct of an unsuccessful party unnecessarily increased the time and expense of the proceedings). 

Where a party rejects an offer to settle, and then obtains a result at trial that is equal to or less favorable than the rejected offer, adverse costs consequences will normally accrue to the party. The rationale behind this approach is that the party rejecting the offer did not obtain a better result at trial and unnecessarily caused all parties to incur the additional expense of trial. 

Court fees (i.e. fees paid directly to the court for such steps as commencing a lawsuit, defending a lawsuit, or bringing a motion) are generally not more than CAD400 per procedural step. A party that succeeds in its lawsuit (or on some smaller step in the lawsuit, such as a motion) is generally able to recover its court fees from the unsuccessful parties.

Last modified 25 Sep 2023

Chile

Chile

In Chile, the unsuccessful party may be responsible for paying the litigation costs of the successful party. Litigation costs include:

  • the judicial fees; and
  • the other party’s attorney’s fees.

When awarding attorney’s fees, the judge may consider:

  • the length of the proceedings;
  • the nature of the claim and complexity of the proceedings;
  • the professional attention to the case and degree of involvement; and
  • the work and study provided by the lawyers.

Unlike some other jurisdictions, in Chile the costs are usually very low without representing the costs and expenses that the parties have actually incurred.

Last modified 10 Oct 2023

China

China

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Measure on the Payment of Litigation Costs, the claimant must pay fees known as “case acceptance fees” to the court at the time of filing the claim and it must do so within seven days of the court’s notification of payment. The acceptance fees are calculated by reference to the sum in dispute (or pursuant to the relevant laws if it is a non-property case). For example, for a monetary case where the sum in dispute is CNY1 million, the case acceptance fee would amount to CNY13,800 and would be calculated by adding together the costs under each of the staggered tiers, as set out below:

The amount claimed Applicable rate  Fees
For any amount no more than CNY10,000 A fixed fee CNY50
For any amount above CNY10,000 but no more than CNY100,000 2.5%

CNY2,250

(90,000 x 2.5% )

For any amount above CNY100,000 but no more than CNY200,000 2%

CNY2,000

(100,000 x 2%)

For any amount above CNY200,000 but no more than CNY500,000 1.5%

CNY4,500

(300,000 x 1.5%)

For any amount above CNY500,000 but no more than CNY1 million 1%

CNY5,000

(500,000 x 1%)

Total case acceptance fees: CNY13,800

Additional costs might be incurred if evidence is obtained outside of the PRC, where translation, notarization and legalization of the evidence is required. The court acceptance fees and other such out-of-pocket expenses would be paid by the unsuccessful party.

A court will also charge when a party requests it to enforce a judgment, an interim relief order or an arbitral award. Such fees are also calculated by reference to the sum in dispute.

Similar to the principle of “costs follow the event” in common law jurisdictions, as a general principle, the costs of an action are usually awarded to the successful party. However, lawyers’ fees fall entirely within the discretion of the court. The court may wish to follow the recommended fee scale issued by the government, which might be significantly lower than the actual lawyers’ fees. If the scale is used, the successful party may only be able to recover part of its lawyer’s fees.

Last modified 30 Oct 2023

Czech Republic

Czech Republic

To initiate civil litigation, a party is obliged to pay a court fee. If the subject of the dispute is a monetary claim, the amount of the court fee is 5% of this monetary claim, with the rate being reduced to 1% on the amount exceeding CZK40,000,000 and no fee is charged on the amount exceeding CZK250,000,000. The law contains several exceptions to this basic rule for determining court fees for monetary claims. For non-monetary claims and demands, the court fee ranges from CZK1,000 to CZK25,000.

If an appeal is filed, a court fee is payable at the same rate as when the civil litigation was initiated.

An extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to a court fee in the range from CZK4,000 to CZK28,000, depending on the type and amount of the claim.

The costs of legal representation are borne by each party during the civil proceedings. Other costs, such as the cost of expert reports, are also borne by the parties. However, if a party proposes the appointment of an expert through the court, the court shall order that party to pay an advance on costs in this respect.

At the end of the proceedings, the court shall order the unsuccessful party to reimburse the other party's costs according to the following rules and principles:

  • if the successful party has paid court fees, the unsuccessful party must reimburse them;
  • the unsuccessful party shall reimburse the successful party for the costs of legal representation determined in accordance with the so-called Tariff Decree. The Tarif Decree sets out that the amount of compensation depends on the value of the dispute and the number of procedural acts. In practice, the amount for reimbursement actually determined is usually lower than the actual costs; and
  • if the successful party has incurred other legally recognized procedural costs, the unsuccessful party must reimburse them.

In the event of partial success, each party is entitled to reimbursement on a pro rata basis and the more successful party is then entitled to the difference between the two amounts.

Last modified 17 Jul 2023

Germany

Germany

The costs of litigation in Germany can be divided into court fees and lawyer's fees. As German law adheres to the “loser pays” rule, the losing party is liable for the court fees and the other party's statutory legal fees. The court and lawyer's fees principally depend on the amount in dispute. For instance, if the amount in dispute is EUR10,000, the court fees for the first instance proceedings are EUR798 and for the first appeal are EUR1,064. The statutory legal fees in first instance for the own lawyer would amount to EUR1,850.45 and the fees for the opposing lawyer would also amount to EUR1,850.45. Where higher amounts are in dispute, the court fees become higher than the statutory lawyer's fees. For the purposes of calculating the recoverable costs, the value in dispute is capped at EUR30 million on which sum the first instance lawyer's fees would be capped at EUR300,168 for each part, and court fees at EUR362,163. In addition to these fees, disbursements for expert witnesses and ordinary witnesses are also recoverable.

Parties without sufficient funds may apply for a grant of legal aid. Parties may retain their lawyers on the basis of hourly rates. However, in the case of court proceedings, these fees will usually exceed the statutory fees described above.

Last modified 12 Oct 2023

Denmark

Denmark

The court fees for a civil lawsuit in Denmark are generally low and divided into two types of court fees:

  • a smaller fee for filing the writ of summons / initiating the lawsuit, which must be paid by the claimant when filing the writ of summons. A defendant filing a counterclaim must also pay a smaller fee; and
  • a fee to be paid before the oral hearing, which amount depends on the type of dispute and the value of the claim in question (range is typically between DKK3,000 – 160,000). A defendant filing a counterclaim must also pay such a fee.

In terms of recovery of attorney fees and other disbursements, the losing party of the dispute will usually have to pay all of its own costs, the court fees and the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party of the dispute, which will be determined by the court.

If the parties are partly successful and partly unsuccessful, the court may order them to cover the costs pro rata in accordance with their relative success or carry their own costs.

Last modified 20 Jul 2023

Spain

Spain

The costs of the proceedings comprise the court fees for litigation, lawyers' fees, the fees of the legal representative and any fees incurred by experts (where relevant).

Each party is liable for the expenses and costs of the proceedings incurred at its request, which might include:

  • those disbursements which originate directly from, or are immediately rooted in, the existence of the proceedings; and
  • the party's costs relating to the payment of the fees of lawyers and legal representatives or deposits required for the submission of appeals (for example, the deposit for filing an appeal is EUR50).

The deposit and court fees for litigation are mandatory, fixed by law and payable when the claimant files its claim form. The amount of court fees varies depending on the type of proceeding and ranges between EUR150 and EUR1,200. The fee for ordinary proceedings is EUR300. Court fees are not usually reimbursed.

Court fees are fixed and must be paid for going to court and making use of the public service of the administration of justice though there are some exemptions (e.g., in cases which involve a decision in respect of fundamental rights). The events triggering the payment of a court fee in civil cases include:

  • commencing a civil claim or enforcement proceedings in respect of an out-of-court settlement; or
  • filing a counterclaim.

Last modified 20 Jul 2023

Finland

Finland

The costs of litigation can be divided into court fees and legal fees, the latter creating the most significant part of the costs. In a general civil law case, the court fee amounts to EUR530 in all court phases (EUR530 per court phase, i.e. a total of EUR1,590 iif the case proceeds to the Supreme Court). The unsuccessful party will usually be ordered to reimburse all reasonable legal costs (i.e. lawyer's fees and disbursements) of the winning party.

Where several claims have been made in the same case and some have been decided in favor of one party and others in favor of the other, the parties are, as a general rule, liable for their own legal costs. The court may modify this rule to reflect the parties' relative successes and failures in the case. It is important to note that there is a rule, based Supreme Court practice, pursuant to which a court will not award costs to a successful party if the relief generally obtained is no more favorable than an offer that has been made by its opponent in the settlement negotiations.

Last modified 9 Oct 2023

France

France

In theory, the successful party is entitled to ask the court to order the unsuccessful party to reimburse its legal costs (pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). However, except in cases where a party proves to be of particularly bad faith, judges are reluctant to award costs on an indemnity basis and the reimbursement of legal fees rarely covers the lawyers' fees in full. In most cases, the court fees allocated will depend on the amount of the litigation at stake and will amount to EUR2,000 to EUR20,000, except for matters relating to intellectual property or arbitration awards/international matters, where the court fees to be expected are closer to the incurred fees.

Last modified 9 Nov 2023

UK - England & Wales UK - England & Wales

UK - England & Wales

Court fees for commencing a claim vary, but are broadly proportionate to the size of the claim. For example, the court fee for a claim of up to GBP300 is GBP35 or GBP25 if filed online. For a claim of between GBP10,000.01 and GBP100,000, the court fee is 5.0% of the total claim amount and for a claim for in excess of GBP200,000 it is a flat fee of GBP10,000. The costs incurred by each party will vary from case to case, depending on factors such as the value and complexity of the case, the duration of the case and the costs associated with their legal representatives.

As a general rule, the successful party in a litigation will recover its costs from the unsuccessful party. However, the court has a wide discretion to order otherwise. Where each litigant has enjoyed some success in the proceedings, courts may make costs orders that reflect the litigants' relative success. Courts can also depart from the general rule by requiring a successful party to bear their own costs where there is good cause to do so (e.g. when a successful claimant is awarded only nominal damages).

Where a party who has made an offer to settle under the CPR's Part 36 (Offers to settle) regime achieves a result which is better than the offer it made, it may recover more in costs than would otherwise have been the case. Conversely, if a party's costs have exceeded any budget which it has been required to submit to the court, it may be penalized for doing so. Successful parties will almost never recover all of their legal costs, which are assessed to establish whether they are proportionate and reasonably incurred.

Last modified 30 Jan 2024

Ireland

Ireland

Court fees are fixed by orders of the different courts and the level of court fees depends on the court in which the case is brought. An updated list of fees can be found here.

Subject to certain exceptions, the general rule is that the successful party is entitled to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful party (in addition to any damages awarded by the court). This covers both court fees and legal fees/attorneys’ fees. However, a party will rarely be awarded all of their legal costs. The general rule is that in practice a successful party normally recovers around 60 - 70% of their total costs incurred. However, the court has wide discretion when awarding costs, and may depart from the general rule depending on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties.

Last modified 5 Dec 2023

UK - Scotland

UK - Scotland

Costs are called expenses in Scotland. Expenses are awarded at the court's discretion, although the general rule is that they follow success. The unsuccessful party will ordinarily have to pay the successful party's costs.

Expenses recoverable in the Scottish system are determined by reference to a statutory Table of Fees. This allows a block fee to be claimed for each element of the legal work undertaken in the case or the charging of a lawyer's time by reference to a fixed rate.

Generally, the Table of Fees allows the successful party to recover up to 60-65% of their actual costs, although in commercial cases it is often less than that. To compensate for this deficit, enhanced costs can be awarded in complex cases via an additional fee procedure.

The level of court fees depends upon the court in which the action is raised. The Court of Session, as the superior court, incurs higher fees than the Sheriff Court. Fees are generally payable by each party to the action. The fees are set out in Scottish Statutory Instruments (referred to as a Fee Orders). These are regularly updated by Fee Amendment Orders.

Last modified 18 Oct 2023

Hong Kong, SAR

Hong Kong, SAR

Hong Kong courts have a wide discretion to award costs orders against a party in order to cover the opposing party’s costs of litigation. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be liable to pay the legal costs of the successful party. Where each litigant has enjoyed some success in the proceedings, courts may modify the general rule to make costs orders that reflect the litigants’ relative success.

Costs orders are subject to a costs assessment process administered by the courts. It is unusual that a party will be able to recover all of its actual legal costs through this process. On a standard assessment, a successful party may recover approximately 60-70% of their actual costs. However, in certain circumstances, the courts may order the costs to be assessed on a more generous basis (such as on a common fund basis or indemnity basis) where the court is of the view that the successful party should recover a greater proportion of the costs it has incurred (such as when the opposing party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the proceeding). If the parties cannot agree on the costs to be paid, the party which is awarded costs can proceed to have the costs assessed by the court (also known as taxation of costs).

In terms of fees payable to the courts, in general a claimant will only need to pay a nominal amount (approximately USD80 to USD130) in court fees to commence a civil action in Hong Kong. However, if the court is subsequently required by any party to undertake a taxation of costs, a taxing fee calculated on a sliding scale, generally at around 2-5% of the amount of legal costs claimed, will also be payable to the court by the party requesting the taxation.

Last modified 2 Nov 2023

Hungary

Hungary

When filing the statement of claim, the claimant must pay a court fee, which is a certain percentage of the claim's value, or a lump sum if the value cannot be determined. The court fee is capped at:

  • HUF1.5 million (approximately EUR4,500) in the first instance proceedings;
  • HUF2.5 million (approximately EUR8,000) in the second instance; and
  • HUF4.5 million (approximately EUR14,000) in the Curia's extraordinary revision proceedings.

During the proceedings, further court fees may be incurred (e.g. fees of judicial experts, and translation costs) which must be advanced and deposited by the party in whose interest the costs are incurred. Moreover, during the litigation, the parties have to pay their own costs, which are included in the procedural costs.

The court decides on the procedural costs at the end of the proceedings on the basis of the parties' winning/losing ratio. In principle, the losing party bears all the procedural costs, including the costs advanced by the successful party during the course of the proceedings. Legal fees are usually awarded by applying a calculation which progressively follows the case value. In practice this means that, in high value cases, lawyers' fees cannot usually be recovered in full by the successful party.

In some cases, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings, the court may grant some relief from the procedural costs. This may either be due to exceptional personal reasons or the nature of the subject of the proceedings. In these circumstances, the court might relieve a party from the requirement to advance and/or bear any procedural costs, alternatively from advancing and/or bearing court fees.

Last modified 21 Jun 2023

Italy

Italy

The unsuccessful party is generally ordered to pay the other party's legal costs (including attorneys’ fees). The amount to be paid is decided by the court and usually represents only a proportion of the legal costs actually incurred.

If the losing party has commenced or carried on civil proceedings in gross negligence or in bad faith, the successful party can claim damages caused by the other party's behaviour (per Article 96 of the Italian Code) together with a fine of between EUR500 and EUR5,000.

As a general rule, Italian law does not provide for punitive damages.

Court fees vary depending on the amount in dispute and the stage of the proceedings (i.e. first instance, appeal or appeal to the Supreme Court (Cassazione)). They range from approximately EUR40 to EUR 4,000.

Last modified 31 May 2023

Japan

Japan

In litigation, court costs comprise:

  • court fees (calculated by reference to the sums claimed and paid by the plaintiff at the time of filing, e.g. the fee payable in a claim worth JPY10 million (c. EUR79,000) would be JPY50,000 (c. EUR400));
  • experts' fees; and
  • costs of other services required for the court proceedings.

As a general rule, the losing party will be ordered to bear these court costs at the time of judgment. However, in cases where the plaintiff is successful on only part of its claim, costs will be apportioned between the parties by reference to the outcome. A court may order all successful parties to pay a certain portion of the costs in the interests of fairness. Moreover, lawyers' fees are not included in court costs; legal fees are merely regarded as one element of the damages to be claimed. In most cases, the amount of legal fees that can be claimed is limited to a maximum of 10% of the total damages awarded and is payable in addition to those damages.

Last modified 27 Oct 2023

South Korea

South Korea

In South Korea, the winning party is generally entitled to a recovery of costs. The costs mainly consist of stamp taxes (i.e., filing fees), service of process fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and a portion of attorneys’ fees. Attorneys' fees are reimbursed only to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court rules. A full recovery of attorneys' fees is not possible. The final judgment of a court includes a decision on the allocation of costs of the proceedings.

Last modified 18 Oct 2023

Kuwait

Kuwait

The costs of litigation in Kuwait can be divided into court fees and legal fees. Court fees are usually in proportion to the amount claimed. In some cases these fees are fixed (generally employment matters or if no particular sum is claimed) and in others, they are levied at 2.5% of the first KWD10,000 plus 1% of any amount claimed above KWD10,000.

The party against whom a judgment is given will usually be required to reimburse the opposing party’s legal fees and pay the court fees. However, the amount of the legal fees awarded is at the sole discretion of the judge. In practice, such amount is nominal and does not reflect the actual legal costs or expenses. The fees granted by the judge will cover the fees paid to the court as well as lawyer fees, which range from KWD50 to KWD500.

Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Luxembourg

Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, it is important to note that there are no court fees for legal proceedings. However, it is common to incur bailiff fees in most proceedings, although these fees are typically nominal.

Regarding attorney fees, the general rule is that a person who engages an attorney to represent their interests in legal proceedings is responsible for paying the attorney's fees in full. However, there are certain conditions under which the judge may order the unsuccessful party to pay a procedural indemnity to the successful party.

To enable a judge to order a procedural indemnity, the winning party must make their request for such an order explicitly. For a claimant, this request can be made in the document initiating the proceedings (such as a petition or writ of summons); for a defendant, the request may be made during the course of proceedings.

The judge will assess the validity of the request, considering factors such as fairness, the incurred expenses not included in the general costs, and the actions taken by the successful party to avoid litigation. The procedural indemnity, which is at the judge's discretion, typically covers a portion of the lawyer's fees and other related costs (ranging from EUR500 to EUR5,000).

Additionally, a successful claimant can recover the costs directly associated with initiating the proceedings, such as bailiff's fees and translation costs, from the defendant – so long as the defendant is solvent. It is not necessary to make a specific request for these fees, but the judge must explicitly specify the party responsible for bearing these costs.

Last modified 15 Nov 2023

Mexico

Mexico

The Mexican Constitution provides that all courts must administer justice free of charge.

However, the main costs of litigation in Mexico include (i) attorneys’ fees; (ii) translation fees; and (iii) day-to-day administrative costs.

Courts are also entitled to award legal fees on litigators who have acted in bad faith, falsely or illegally, the purpose of which is to reimburse the opposing party for the costs and legal fees during the litigation, which is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Last modified 17 Oct 2023

Netherlands

Netherlands

The costs of litigation in the Netherlands can be divided into court fees, bailiff fees and legal fees.

The court fees depend on:

(i) the claimed amount; and

(ii) the capacity of parties.

  • At the district courts, court fees range between EUR86 (for persons of limited means) and EUR8,519 (for corporate entities in claims over EUR1,000,000).
  • Court fees are higher at courts of appeal, ranging between EUR343 and EUR11,379.
  • At the Supreme Court, the court fees range between EUR355 and EUR14,229. Bailiff fees vary between EUR80 and EUR500.

Apart from the “regular” court system, in the Netherlands parties can decide to litigate in front of the Netherlands Commercial Court (“NCC”) The court fees at the NCC in the first instance are around EUR16,000.

The unsuccessful party will usually be ordered to reimburse the opposite party's court fees. Furthermore, a fixed amount will be awarded as a reimbursement for legal fees. This amount depends on the number of procedural acts involved and is usually only a fraction of the actual legal fees (amounts between EUR500 for straightforward proceedings and EUR15,000 are common). Only in intellectual property proceedings the actual legal fees of the successful party must be reimbursed by the unsuccessful party.

Last modified 18 Oct 2023

Norway

Norway

The general rule in Norwegian civil proceedings is that the successful party is entitled to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful party. The court may depart from this general rule in certain circumstances, including: (i) if the unsuccessful party had good reason for having the case tried, for example if the case raises questions of principle interest and the court has been in doubt as to the result; (ii) if the successful party rejected a reasonable settlement offer; (iii) if the matter is important for the welfare of the unsuccessful party and there is a difference in strength between the parties, etc. Norwegian law also provides for awards of legal costs in cases where one of the parties has succeeded only in part, but nevertheless to a significant degree. Finally, costs may be awarded irrespective of the outcome of the case in rare cases, for example where costs are incurred due to a party’s omission.

In any case, only costs which are necessary and reasonably incurred are recoverable. The level of legal costs incurred in legal proceedings is a focus area for the Norwegian courts, meaning that the parties’ legal cost claims are more closely examined than the Dispute Act strictly requires.

It is common practice that successful parties are entitled to legal cost compensation even if they are represented by their own in-house counsel. The starting point in these situations is the successful party’s actual yearly costs for its relevant in-house counsel (factoring in wage, tax, pension fund payments etc.), which are then broken down into daily/hourly costs. The next step is then to allocate the relevant costs incurred in the matter. These costs are subjected to the necessity test, in the same way as the costs to external counsel.

The court fees vary depending on the length of the proceedings and are subject to a minor adjustment each year. The court fee for admission to the District Court for 2023 is NOK6,215. This includes the first day in court. If the action does not end with a judgment (for example due to settlement) the fee will be reduced. The fee for interim relief is NOK3,107 as at 2023.

Last modified 29 Oct 2023

New Zealand

New Zealand

New Zealand courts have wide discretion to award costs against any party to cover an opposing party's costs of litigation. The general rule is that "costs follow the event". This means that the unsuccessful party will be liable to pay the litigation costs of the successful party.

Costs are awarded based on a scale set under the relevant procedural rules (usually the High Court Rules in a commercial case). This provides set amounts for each step in the proceedings based on three rates of complexity of the matter - simple, standard or complex. Generally, a party will recover approximately one third of its actual costs.

Courts may depart from the general rule in various circumstances and have wide discretion over costs, for example:

  • where each litigant has enjoyed some success in the proceedings, courts may modify the general rule to make costs orders that reflect the litigants' relative success and failure;
  • increased costs may be ordered where the party opposing costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceedings, or a party has refused to accept an offer of settlement that is more than the party ultimately recovered; or
  • indemnity (actual) costs may be awarded where a party has acted vexatiously, there is a contractual entitlement to indemnity costs, or the person in whose favour the costs order is made was not a party to the proceedings.

Various court fees apply for filing proceedings and hearing charges.

Last modified 31 May 2023

Oman

Oman

Court fees (including experts’ fees) are generally recoverable by the successful party in Omani court proceedings, but only a nominal amount will be awarded for lawyers’ fees. Where neither party has been entirely successful in their claims, the court may decide that each party shall bear its own costs. The prevailing party may be ordered to pay some or all of its costs if:

  • the claim was undisputed by the defendant;
  • the prevailing party caused unnecessary costs to be incurred; or
  • the prevailing party failed to provide its opponent with the documents (or its contents) which the court deems to be conclusive in the matter.

The court fees payable for claims and appeals vary depending on the nature and value of the claim. They include the following:

  • Commercial disputes: 2% of the amount of the claim or appeal, with a minimum of OMR30 and maximum of OMR3,000.
  • Civil disputes: 2% of the amount of the claim, with a minimum of OMR10 and maximum of OMR30, and 2% of the amount of the appeal, with a minimum of OMR20 and maximum of OMR50.
  • Family dispute: OMR5 except the inheritance dispute calculated according to the civil disputes’ fees.
  • Labour dispute: there are no fees for labour disputes for employees. However, for the employer this will be calculated according to the commercial disputes’ fees.
  • For an appeal to the Supreme Court, the fees are OMR25, in addition to OMR as grantee and OMR10 if there is an application to suspend the enforcement.
  • There is no fee for enforcing the judgments.

Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Poland

Poland

The costs of legal proceedings in Poland are generally low. The general rule in commercial cases is that when a case is filed, the claimant has to pay the court fees. The court fees are 5% of the value of the dispute, but court fees are capped at PLN200,000 (around EUR45,000). The same court fees apply to appeal and cassation proceedings. In principle, the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the legal proceedings (court fees, attorneys' fees, and other expenses such as experts’ fees). However, the amount granted by the judge for attorneys’ fees must be within the limit prescribed by law and may not exceed six times the minimum rate (see below). The reasons for an increased rate may include:

  • the case is complicated;
  • the attorney’s workload was heavy; or
  • the value of the litigation.

In practice, courts often award the minimum rate. For instance, if the value of a dispute is between PLN2,000,000 (EUR450,000) and PLN5,000,000 (EUR1,125,000), the minimum rate is PLN15,000 (EUR3,400) and the maximum rate is PLN90,000 (EUR20,400), and if the value of the dispute is above PLN5,000,000 (EUR1,125,000), the minimum rate is PLN25,000 (EUR5,600), and the maximum rate is PLN150,000 (EUR33,600). Experts’ fees are also subject to regulation and are very low (usually between EUR1,000 and EUR7,000). The question of costs is decided in the last phase of judicial proceedings at the time of the judgment. The courts ask parties for advance payments on expert fees.

Last modified 2 Oct 2023

Portugal

Portugal

In all proceedings and without prejudice to the following paragraphs, the parties initially bear their own costs, including all legal expenses.

As a general rule, the losing party shall bear not only its own court costs but also the court costs (judicial fees) incurred by the successful party during the proceedings, as well as 50% of all costs incurred by both parties as compensation.

If the losing party has commenced or continued civil proceedings in gross negligence or bad faith, the successful party can claim damages caused by the counterparty’s behaviour.

Court fees vary depending on the amount in dispute and the stage of the proceedings (i.e. first instance, appeal or appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice). In ordinary proceedings for disputes with a value up to EUR275,000 and for the Courts of First Instance, the fees range from approximately EUR102 to EUR1,632. On appeals to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, the initial judicial fee is EUR816).

If the value of the claim is higher than EUR275,000, the amount in excess of that figure will be taxed at the end of the proceeding, for each stage. For example, in a EUR4.25 million claim, the initial judicial fee would be EUR1,632 in the Court of First Instance and the balance of the claim value (from EUR275,000 to EUR4.25 million) would be taxed at the end of the proceeding as follows:

First Instance Court fees:

  • Initial judicial fee: EUR1,632
  • Remaining judicial fee: EUR48,654
  • Total: about EUR50,286.00

Second Instance Court fees (in case of appeal):

  • Initial judicial fee: EUR816
  • Remaining judicial fee: EUR24,327
  • Total: about EUR25,143.00

Third Instance Court fees (in case of appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, only admissible in certain circumstances):

  • Initial judicial fee: EUR816
  • Remaining judicial fee: EUR24,327
  • Total: about EUR25,143.00

At the end of the proceedings, both parties will have to pay the remaining judicial fee unless the court agrees to waive it, which often happens when the dispute is resolved before the final hearing, e.g. through a settlement agreement.

Last modified 22 Sep 2023

Qatar

Qatar

Court fees (including experts' fees) are generally recoverable by the successful party in Qatari court proceedings, but only a nominal amount will be awarded for lawyers' fees. Where neither party has been entirely successful in their claims, the court may decide that each party shall bear its own costs. The prevailing party may be ordered to pay some or all of its costs if:

  • the claim was undisputed by the defendant;
  • the prevailing party caused unnecessary costs to be incurred; or
  • the prevailing party failed to provide its opponent with the documents (or its contents) which the court deems to be conclusive in the matter.

The court fees payable for claims vary depending on the nature and value of the claim. The applicable court fees are also routinely amended and are not readily accessible on a centralized court website. The best source of information on current court fees is local counsel, who will be able to search the relevant court website.

Last modified 11 Dec 2023

Romania

Romania

The costs of litigation in Romania include court fees (approximately ranging between 1% and 10% of the value of the claim), fees related to obtaining evidence (e.g. expert reports) and lawyers' fees. As a general rule, court fees are paid by the claimant, fees related to the production of evidence are paid by the party that proposed the evidence, and both parties pay their respective lawyers' fees.

In some cases, the court may order the losing party to cover the opposing party's litigation costs. If the position of one of the parties is fully accepted, the court can only reduce the amount payable by the losing party for the successful party's lawyers' fees when they are considered disproportionate to the complexity and the value of the case.

Last modified 27 Oct 2023

Russia

Russia

The costs of litigation in Russia can be divided, practically speaking, into court fees (state duty, expert fees, etc.) and legal fees.

Court fees tend to be nominal; however, they depend on various factors, such as, the amount of the claim, the nature of claim, and the involvement of experts. State duty ranges between RUB6,000 (approximately USD100) for non-pecuniary claims and a maximum amount of RUB200,000 (approximately USD3,000) for state duty monetary claims.

The party against whom the judgment was made should reimburse the opposing party’s court fees. Reimbursement for legal fees is also possible. In practice, however, it is often the case that only a fraction of the actual legal fees is reimbursed.

Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

There are no charges for filing or appealing a claim in any Saudi court at the date of writing this report. Generally, each party bears its own lawyers' fees. However, it is possible to claim reimbursement of a party's legal fees, and it is under the judge's discretion to award the amount they see fit or to reject the claim.

Last modified 1 Dec 2023

Sweden

Sweden

Court fees are low in Sweden (about EUR300). Payment of this court fee is made by claim, meaning that it will need to be paid once:

  • by the claimant when filing the writ of summons; and
  • by the defendant when (and if) filing a counterclaim.

Aside from the court fee for application, there are no more fees to the court in civil proceedings.

In terms of recovery of attorney fees and other disbursements the losing party will usually have to pay all of its own costs and the reasonable costs incurred by the opposite party. If the parties are successful and unsuccessful on different issues of the case, the court may order them to cover the costs pro rata in accordance with their relative success, or carry their own costs.

Last modified 18 Oct 2023

Singapore

Singapore

While costs are at the court’s discretion and subject to the reasonableness requirement, a successful party will generally be allowed to recover its costs (legal fees and disbursements) from the unsuccessful party, unless there are special reasons to depart from this starting position (e.g. costs were incurred due to unnecessary claims or issues, or due to misconduct or neglect). 

When awarding costs, the courts will have regard to any pre-trial offers or amicable resolutions (or failure to engage in such efforts), the scales of costs in the Rules of Court and the judge-issued cost guidelines in the Practice Directions.

The court fee payable for commencing an action depends on where the case is commenced and the claim sum. Where the claim is commenced in the High Court, the court fee is SGD500 for a claim of up to SGD1 million or SGD1,000 for a claim of more than SGD1 million. The court fee is SGD150 for a claim in the District Court and SGD100 for a claim in the Magistrate’s Court.  

Last modified 2 Oct 2023

Slovakia

Slovakia

In civil proceedings, costs are expenses incurred in connection with the exercise or defence of a right. However, under Slovakia’s laws, recoverable costs only include those costs which are proven, justified and reasonably incurred.

The court decides whether a party to the dispute is entitled to reimbursement for costs, even without an application, upon termination of the proceedings. The court determines the proportion of the costs by a percentage or fraction of the costs actually incurred by a party. In practice, the party against whom the judgment is given will usually be ordered to reimburse the opposite party’s court fees.

One of the most common costs is the court fee. This is the fee that must be paid in order to initiate court proceedings. The amount of court fees is determined by the Court Fees Act. The rate of the fee is indicated either as a percentage of the fee base or as a fixed amount. The amount of the court fee is typically 6% of the value of the subject matter of the proceedings, with a minimum fee of EUR16.50 and a maximum fee of EUR16,596.50. In commercial cases, a maximum fee of EUR33,193.50 applies. If the subject matter of the proceedings cannot be valued in monetary terms (for example, the case concerns determination of ownership rights of property), a fixed fee of EUR99.50 applies.

A special category of costs are the attorney’s legal fees and disbursements, the recoverability of which are determined in accordance with the provisions of the Decree on Lawyers’ Fees and Disbursement for the Provision of Legal Services (irrespective of the fee agreed by attorney and client for the provision of legal services). Accordingly, costs recovered at the conclusion of proceedings may well not be equal to the actual cost of the attorney’s fees.

Costs also include travel, subsistence, accommodation and evidence costs.

Last modified 1 Jun 2023

Thailand

Thailand

A court filing fee must be paid by the plaintiff when submitting a claim. The fee is calculated as a percentage of the claim value: 2% of the claim amount, for actions up to THB50 million, of the fee will not exceed THB200,000. Any amount above the THB50 million threshold, an additional 0.1% added to the claim amount. Most fees can now be paid online.

The court has discretion to award costs to the prevailing party, and in principle court fees are recoverable in the event of a successful claim. However, the legal fees recoverable by the successful party are only nominal. In deciding the amount of lawyers' fees to be reimbursed, the court take into consideration the complexity of the case, the time spent and the amount of work completed by the lawyer whilst handling the matter.

The amount of legal fees that can be claimed is generally limited to a maximum of THB 500,000. In practice, it is often much less.

The defendant can apply to the court for an order requiring the plaintiff to deposit money or security with the court for costs and expenses if either:

  • the plaintiff is not domiciled or does not have a business office situated in Thailand;
  • does not have any assets in Thailand; or
  • there is a strong reason to believe the plaintiff will evade payment of costs and expenses, if it is unsuccessful.

Third party funding and contingency fees arrangements for lawyers are neither permitted nor encouraged in Thailand.

Contingency fee arrangements are unenforceable in Thailand as the Supreme Court have found them to be against public order and good morals. The Supreme Court has also found that allowing an unrelated third party to fund a litigation in return for benefits would be against public policy.

Last modified 8 Nov 2023

United States

United States

Applicable procedural rules in most state and federal courts provide for costs (not attorneys’ fees) to be awarded to the prevailing party following entry of final judgment. Costs eligible for recovery, which usually range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, include:

  • court filing fees;
  • fees for serving process;
  • witness fees and transportation expenses;
  • transcript preparation fees;
  • copying fees; and
  • compensation for court-appointed experts and interpreters.

As a general rule, the United States does not have a loser-pays system; instead, each party typically bears its attorney’s fees, regardless of whether it prevails in the dispute. There are limited exceptions where attorney’s fees and other costs (for example, expert witness fees) are recoverable. For instance, fees may be expressly authorized by the statute under which a particular claim is being litigated, or a contract between the parties may authorize the court to award them.

When fees are authorized, a request for fees is typically made to the judge presiding over the dispute, supported by evidence of the time spent on the matter. The amount of fees awarded varies depending on the claim at issue and the complexity of the case, with the presiding judge having broad discretion to decide what award is reasonable and appropriate. In simple cases, a fee award may be limited to a few thousand dollars. In highly complex litigation, courts have awarded fees ranging into the tens - and in some circumstances involving large, highly complex litigation, hundreds of millions of dollars.

.

Last modified 22 Sep 2023

South Africa

South Africa

A court has wide discretion with regard to costs. A successful party is ordinarily awarded a costs order against the unsuccessful party.

There are different types of costs:

  • party-and-party costs: the standard costs order awarded is for the costs that are necessarily incurred for the purpose of litigation, to obtain justice, and protect the client’s rights, which is charged according to a tariff set out in the rules of court;
  • attorney-client costs: these costs orders entitle a party to recover more costs from the opposing party than he would have been able to recover on a part-and-party basis. These costs cover all costs that the attorney is entitled to recover from the client including costs, charges and expenses between attorney and client, according to a higher tariff. These costs orders are made because the losing party has agreed to pay such costs prior to litigation. A court may also make an attorney-client costs order to penalize a party that the court believes acted improperly; and
  • costs de bonis propriis: this costs order directs a legal representative to pay the costs instead of their client. This order is made when the court believes that it was the legal representative’s fault that certain legal costs were incurred. A court can also grant a de bonis propriis costs order against a person that acts in a representative capacity.

The parties to action and application proceedings do not pay any court fees in South Africa.

Last modified 18 Aug 2023

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) are financial free zones in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) established pursuant to Federal Laws of the UAE, specifically pursuant to the UAE Constitution and UAE Federal Law No. 8 of 2004 (Financial Free Zone Law).

The Financial Free Zone Law allows for the creation of independent jurisdictions within the UAE in that financial free zones established under the law are exempted from all civil and commercial laws of the UAE. However, they remain subject to the criminal laws of the Emirate in which they are established and the federal criminal laws of the UAE.

In this regard, the DIFC and ADGM (in relation to civil and commercial matters) each have their own legal and regulatory frameworks. The ADGM's legal framework is based on English law. The ADGM regulations adopt selected pieces of English legislation, including matters relating to contract, tort and trusts. By contrast, the DIFC has its own body of laws. DIFC law takes precedence, followed by the law of any jurisdiction other than that of the DIFC expressly chosen by the parties followed by a cascade which ultimately ends with English law. That said, in contractual disputes, the DIFC and ADGM courts should apply the chosen law of the parties.

The DIFC and ADGM each also have their own two-tier court system: the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the DIFC and ADGM courts have their own rules of court procedure. These procedural rules are broadly based on the English Civil Procedure Rules.

The judges of the DIFC courts are a mix of UAE civil trained judges and judges from various common law jurisdictions including England, Australia and Singapore. The judges of the ADGM courts are from common law jurisdictions only.

The DIFC and ADGM, as jurisdictions, are colloquially referred to as being offshore as opposed to the onshore jurisdictions of each of the seven Emirates of the UAE.

It is worth highlighting that the DIFC and ADGM are young jurisdictions that are continuing to develop on a daily basis. Both jurisdictions were created and operate to provide an alternative forum for dispute resolution in the UAE. In doing so, both the DIFC and ADGM courts have needed to put in place a framework for the interaction of their jurisdiction with the onshore jurisdictions in the Emirates of their establishment and the wider UAE. To this effect, the DIFC and ADGM courts have entered into memoranda of understanding with various courts and jurisdictions, both in the UAE and abroad, which seek to establish processes for the mutual enforcement of judgments and orders.

In this regard, the current legal framework between the DIFC courts and the onshore Dubai courts allows a party to directly enforce a final judgment or order of the DIFC courts onshore in Dubai through the Dubai courts. This has led parties to seek to enforce arbitral awards (both local and foreign) and foreign judgments (including those which have no connection with the DIFC) in the Dubai courts by having them recognized and enforced by the DIFC courts first. This has led to arguments as to whether the DIFC can be used as a conduit jurisdiction for the enforcement of judgments onshore in Dubai in this way.

In addition, a Judicial Committee was formed in Dubai, seemingly as a result of this approach to enforcement. The committee is tasked with resolving conflicts of jurisdiction and judgments between the DIFC and Dubai courts. The committee is formed of three DIFC court judges, three onshore Dubai court judges and is chaired by the head of the Dubai Court of Cassation. The chair has the casting vote in cases of deadlock.

The application of limitation periods is usually an issue of substantive law and therefore the law applicable to the particular contract or interaction of the parties. Advice should be sought on a case-by-case basis on the applicable limitation period and its expiry, as it can critically affect a party's ability to bring a claim.

Assuming that DIFC or ADGM law is the applicable law in respect of limitation periods, the general position is set out below.

Under DIFC law, the position is generally as follows:

  • an action for breach of contract must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrued;
  • in respect of claims in negligence, occupiers' liability or misrepresentation, a cause of action arises on the earliest date on which the claimant knows or ought reasonably to know about the loss that gives rise to the cause of action, and an action must be commenced within 15 years of the date that the cause of action in fact arose; and
  • where a cause of action arises as a result of fraud by the defendant, there is no time limit before which the action must be commenced.

The ADGM Regulations adopt selected pieces of English legislation, including the English legislation relating to limitation and in particular adopts the Limitation Act 1980 and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The position is, generally, as follows:

  • an action for breach of contract must be brought within six years of the date of the breach of contract;
  • an action for breach of deed must be brought within 12 years of the breach of the obligation in the deed;
  • an action in tort/negligence generally, must be brought within six years from the date the damage is suffered;
  • an action in negligence, and in respect of latent damage, has to be brought within the later of six years from the date the damage occurred or three years from the date on which the claimant had the requisite knowledge and the right to bring such an action; and
  • an action in fraud has to be brought within six years from when the claimant discovered the fraud, or when they could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it.

The DIFC and ADGM court rules have generally similar litigation procedures. Subject to the issues in dispute, proceedings will generally go through the following stages:

  • Claim: A party files its claim with the court and serves the same on the parties to the proceedings.
  • Pleadings: Parties exchange their pleadings which include particularized statements of claim, defense, counterclaims and defense to counterclaims. These pleadings will identify and particularize the issues in dispute.
  • Disclosure: This will begin during the pleadings phase and proceed concurrently with the remaining phases.
  • Factual witnesses: Parties will exchange any statements of witnesses of fact they wish to rely on and potentially also exchange reply statements.
  • Expert witnesses: Parties will exchange any statements of experts they wish to rely on and potentially also exchange reply statements.
  • Trial: Parties will finally attend an oral hearing before the court to argue their respective cases. It is also at trial that the witnesses and experts of the parties will be examined and cross-examined on their evidence.

It is difficult to estimate the timeframe of proceedings in the DIFC courts, and the ADGM courts (as at the time of writing) are yet to hear cases that have been through the entirety of the litigation process (including appeals). That said, the relevant factors to be considered include:

  • the complexity and number of issues in dispute;
  • the availability of the parties, their respective counsel, witnesses and experts; and
  • the availability of the judge(s) allocated to the case.

Legal representation in DIFC or ADGM court proceedings is not mandatory. However, in circumstances where a claim falls into a small claims category, legal representation may not be permitted by the relevant court rules.

Each of the DIFC and ADGM court rules have specific rules for when a claim is considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the small claims court or tribunal. These rules are:

  • aimed at efficiently dispensing with cases and examples of this include:
    • truncated timetables for service of proceedings and pleadings;
    • no provision for a document production/disclosure process. However, orders for document production could be applied for;
    • expert evidence is not permitted without an order of the court; and
    • the ability of the parties to agree that the dispute be dealt with on the papers.
  • are not solely related to value; small claims could include, for example, employment cases where the parties have agreed to refer the matter to a small claims tribunal.

It is also worth noting that each of the DIFC and ADGM rules have unique provisions and processes in respect of small claims. For example, the DIFC rules provide for:

  • a conciliatory process identified as a consultation phase where the parties meet before the judge hearing their case with the aim of settling the dispute prior to a hearing on the merits; and
  • hearings and consultations to be in private (unless the parties agree otherwise).

In the DIFC courts, each party is required to submit to the other parties:

  • all documents available to it on which it relies, including public documents and those in the public domain, except for any documents that have already been submitted by another party (but not documents which adversely affect its case or support another party's); and
  • the documents which it is required to produce by any DIFC court rule.

The default position under the ADGM court rules is similar in that parties must give to all other parties standard disclosure, which includes all the documents on which a party will rely upon at trial, except for documents that have already been submitted by another party (but not documents which adversely affect its case or support another party's). This default position can vary depending on the type of proceedings, the agreement of the parties or direction from the court.

After the initial stages, the parties are then given the opportunity to provide Requests to Produce Documents to their opponent (in the DIFC) or to make an application for specific disclosure to the court (in the ADGM), in which they are required to precisely identify the documents requested and explain (among other things) why they are relevant and material to the outcome of the case (DIFC), or would assist the fair and efficient trial of the proceedings (ADGM).

In circumstances where production of documents is disputed, in both the DIFC and ADGM, applications can be made to the court to rule on whether such production should take place. The court will usually be guided by whether the document in question is relevant to the issues in dispute (and meets other requirements, such as existence and proportionality of the request). The court will then issue orders for production.

The DIFC court rules allow a DIFC court to, at any time, request a party to produce to the court and to the other parties any documents that the court considers to be relevant and material to the outcome of the case on the court's own initiative. A similar rule does not appear in the ADGM court rules. That said, an ADGM court could make such an order based on its general management powers which allows an ADGM court to make any order, give any direction or take any step it considers appropriate for the purpose of managing the proceedings and furthering the overriding objective of the ADGM court rules.

In addition, both the DIFC and ADGM court rules allow for disclosure to be ordered against non-parties to proceedings where the court is convinced that:

  • the disclosure produced as a result of the order is likely to support the applicant's case, or adversely affect the case of one of the other parties to the proceedings; and
  • the disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim.

The DIFC and ADGM court rules allow a claimant to apply to obtain a default judgment where the defendant has missed the time limit to acknowledge the claim against it, or has acknowledged the claim but failed to file a defense.

Once default judgment has been granted, the defendant has no right to appeal the court's decision. However, the defendant may apply to the court to have the judgment set aside or varied. There is no specific guidance provided by the ADGM or DIFC court rules in respect of when an application to set aside or vary a default judgment should be made. However, it is likely that the DIFC and ADGM courts would apply the principles established by the courts of England and Wales. Therefore, any such application should be made promptly. The courts of England and Wales have held promptness (in the context of the applicable provisions of the English CPR) to mean acting with "all reasonable speed in the circumstances."

The DIFC and ADGM each have a two-tier court system: the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The respective court rules of the DIFC and ADGM have broadly similar procedures for the appeal of judgments of the lower court. In each case, before the judgments of the Court of First Instance can be appealed to the Court of Appeal, permission to appeal is required.

Obtaining permission to appeal differs slightly between the DIFC and ADGM courts:

  • under the DIFC court rules, where permission to appeal is initially refused on the papers, a party may seek to renew the application at an oral hearing; and
  • under the ADGM court rules, all applications for permission to appeal are considered without a hearing. In DIFC court proceedings, an application for permission to appeal may be made to:
    • the Court of First Instance at the hearing where the judgment was made; or
    • that court or the Court of Appeal in a subsequent appeal notice.

If permission is sought by way of an appeal notice, that appeal notice must be filed either within the period directed by the lower court or, if no such direction was provided, within 21 days after the date of the decision of the lower court that the appellant wishes to appeal. If the lower court refuses permission, a further application for permission can be made to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of the lower court's refusal.

In ADGM court proceedings, and similar to DIFC court proceedings, permission must be obtained from a decision of a judge in the Court of First Instance in order to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In order to obtain such permission, an application may be made to the Court of First Instance within 14 days of the date when the decision to be appealed was made. Should the Court of First Instance refuse an application for permission to appeal, a further application for permission to appeal may be made to the Court of Appeal within 28 days from the date of the refusal. All applications for permission to appeal are considered by a panel of three judges without a hearing. The panel may grant or refuse permission to advance all or any of the grounds of appeal or invite the parties to file written submissions within 14 days in relation to the grant of permission. Permission to appeal may only be granted where the panel considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

Interim relief proceedings are proceedings that relate to a party seeking orders for interim/provisional relief. Such orders are usually granted at an early stage in the proceedings, or before the merits of a dispute are examined. These are distinguished from final remedies which ordinarily form part of the final judgments or orders that dispose of a dispute. There are a wide range of these orders and they usually act to maintain the status quo between the parties. Such orders or remedies can also be stand-alone in their nature; for example, an anti-suit injunction which prevents or restricts a party's ability to commence or continue legal proceedings in a particular forum.

The ability to grant and apply for interim remedies is enshrined in the court laws and procedural rules of each of the DIFC and ADGM. At the date of writing, there have been no reported interim applications or orders in the ADGM courts. The DIFC courts, on the other hand, have either granted or heard applications for various interim remedies, including:

  • freezing orders (including worldwide freezing orders) (for further details, please see ‘Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders’ below);
  • disclosure orders;
  • anti-suit injunctions; and
  • interim payment orders.

Applications for interim relief are made to the DIFC court and/or ADGM Court of First Instance either on an ex parte basis (i.e. where the respondent is not present at the first hearing) or with notice. In circumstances where the application is made on an ex-parte basis, the applicant is under a duty of full and frank disclosure which in turn requires it to disclose all relevant material to the court, including material which may be adverse to its case.

Before entertaining any substantive application for interim relief, the party seeking an interim remedy from either the DIFC or ADGM courts will first need to establish that the relevant court has jurisdiction under its relevant jurisdictional laws. When deciding the substantive application, DIFC court case law illustrates that the approach in deciding the substantive elements of the application generally follows the principles for granting equitable relief in English law. The applicable tests differ depending on the relief sought. However, those elements include:

  • whether there is a serious question to be tried;
  • whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and
  • the balance of convenience between the parties.

Orders for interim relief issued by the DIFC and/or the ADGM court are not appealable, although a party may apply to have the relevant order varied or set aside. The procedure and basis for doing so will depend on the basis on which the particular order was issued.

Given that the DIFC and ADGM are fairly young jurisdictions, it is difficult to accurately estimate the timeframe by which orders for interim relief could be obtained once applied for.

Legal representation for such applications is not mandatory. However, it is strongly recommended that legal advice is sought in respect of any application for interim relief due to the complexity of the legal issues relating to such applications.

Freezing orders are a category of interim relief that both the DIFC and ADGM courts have the power to grant. It is also worth noting that, in the case of the DIFC courts, there are cases in which freezing orders granted in other jurisdictions have been enforced. These applications are made to the relevant Court of First Instance.

Orders can be made for the freezing of any assets (moveable and immoveable). However, the enforceability of those orders will depend on whether the jurisdiction in which they will be enforced recognizes such orders (or have the power to grant such relief). For example, the DIFC court could make an order to freeze (or otherwise attach) the shares of a limited liability company in onshore Dubai. Whether that attachment will be effective will be subject to: (i) whether the Dubai courts will recognize the DIFC court's order; and (ii) whether such a form of relief is one that is available under the laws of Dubai and the UAE (and therefore one that the Dubai courts can grant).

The DIFC court generally follows English law principles when considering applications for freezing orders. The considerations for such applications include:

  • that there is a serious question to be tried;
  • that the balance of convenience is in favor of granting such an order;
  • that there is a likelihood of injury/damage for which damages would not be an adequate remedy;
  • the applicant having an underlying cause of action, in that the applicant must have a substantive claim that may give rise to a judgment that will be enforced against the respondent's (potentially frozen) assets;
  • the applicant having a good arguable case;
  • the existence of the respondent's assets and such assets being sufficient to meet the applicant's substantive claim; and
  • a real risk of dissipation of the respondent's assets.

Furthermore, in ex parte applications (i.e. where the respondent is not present at the first hearing), the applicant is under a duty of full and frank disclosure which in turn requires it to disclose all relevant material to the court, including material which may be adverse to its case.

Additionally, an applicant obtaining a freezing order from the DIFC courts is generally required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages. This would act to satisfy any damages the respondent incurs where it transpires that the application was wrongfully granted.

The ADGM courts are likely to apply a similar approach.

Both the ADGM and DIFC court rules recognize that applications for interim relief (which include freezing orders), may be made before any substantive proceedings are commenced. In that regard, both court rules provide that the court may give directions requiring a claim to be commenced. Therefore, the issuance of any substantive proceedings will be subject to the discretion of the court.

The DIFC court rules provide the court with considerable discretion when it comes to making orders as to costs. However, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be responsible for settling some part of the successful party's costs, and generally, any court fees that party has incurred. The court must have regard to all the circumstances when making an order as to costs. This includes consideration of the degree of success of the cases of the parties, their conduct during the proceedings and any offers to settle. There is also potential for the DIFC court to make no order as to costs. This is usually where the DIFC court finds that the merits of each party's case are balanced.

The DIFC court will assess the amount of costs due to the successful party on either a standard or indemnity basis. Where costs are assessed on the standard basis, the court will:

  • only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue to be recovered; and
  • resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or reasonable and proportionate in amount in favor of the paying party.

On the other hand, where costs are assessed on an indemnity basis, any doubt as to whether costs had been reasonably incurred or are reasonable and proportionate in amount is interpreted in favor of the successful party.

It is also worth noting that the DIFC court is empowered to issue an interim costs order in favor of a party. These costs orders will usually reflect 50% of the costs incurred by the party, or what the court believes is the minimum it will recover.

The ADGM court rules, although somewhat less extensive than the DIFC court rules on costs and their recovery, broadly follow the framework of the DIFC court rules.

Each of the DIFC and ADGM courts have fee schedules relating to court proceedings and applications that are updated on a regular basis. There are a number of fees applicable to a claim including filing fees, application fees and hearing fees.

For substantive claims, and in general, fees are calculated on claim and counterclaim values and expressed as a lump sum plus a percentage.

At the time of writing (December 2023):

  • the DIFC court fees for money and/or property claims were:            

CLAIM VALUE

FEE

Up to and including USD500,000

5% of the value of the claim and/or the property with a minimum of USD1,500

USD500,000-USD1 million

USD25,000 + 1% over USD500,000

USD1 million-USD5 million

USD30,000 + 0.5% over USD1 million

USD4 million-USD10 million

USD50,000 + 0.4% over USD5 million

USD10 million-USD50 million

USD70,000 + 0.15% over USD10 million

Over USD50 million

USD130,000

 

  • the ADGM court fees for money and/or property claims were:

CLAIM VALUE

FEE

USD100,001-USD500,000

3% of the value of the claim

USD500,000-USD1 million

USD15,000 + 2%

USD1 million-USD 5 million

USD25,000 + 0.6%

USD5,000,001 - USD10 million

USD49,000 + 0.4%

USD10 million

USD69,000 + 0.15% to a maximum of USD99,000

All other claims

USD4,000



The DIFC and ADGM courts do not have any laws or procedures for class action proceedings. However, the DIFC and ADGM courts are empowered to make a Group Litigation Order to manage claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law. Such an order can also be sought by application.

Andrew Mackenzie

Andrew Mackenzie

Partner and Regional Head of Litigation, Arbitration, Regulatory and Investigations (Middle East)
DLA Piper Middle East LLP
[email protected]
T +971 55 431 2712
View bio