Stelian Gheorghe v (1) Bsa Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates Llp (2) Jimmy Haoula [2026] DIFC CFI 045 (06 April 2026)

Stelian Gheorghe v (1) Bsa Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates Llp (2) Jimmy Haoula [2026] DIFC CFI 045 (06 April 2026)

The Court refused permission to appeal because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the appeal. Immediate assessment was appropriate under RDC 38.30(1), the burden of proof was not reversed, the broad-brush approach was correctly applied, and there was no improper duplication or cross-subsidisation of costs.

Citation
[2026] DIFC CFI 045
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Stelian Gheorghe; First Defendant/respondent: Bsa Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates LLP; Second Defendant/respondent: Jimmy Haoula
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
06 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Immediate Assessment of Costs, Burden of Proof in Costs, Broad Brush Approach, Jurisdictional Proceedings, Duplication of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Immediate Assessment of Costs Burden of Proof in Costs Broad Brush Approach Jurisdictional Proceedings Duplication of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stelian Gheorghe

Claimant/appellant

Bsa Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates LLP

First Defendant/respondent

Jimmy Haoula

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether immediate assessment of costs was appropriate under RDC 38.30(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Court reversed the burden of proof under RDC 38.2
  3. 3 Whether the broad-brush approach was misapplied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused permission to appeal because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the appeal. Immediate assessment was appropriate under RDC 38.30(1), the burden of proof was not reversed, the broad-brush approach was correctly applied, and there was no improper duplication or cross-subsidisation of costs.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Claimant’s Application for Permission to Appeal is refused.
  • No order as to costs.