- Tom Ogg represented the Defendant in Pernella v Pearson [2026] CFI 018/2026, which addresses:
- The relationship between practice directions and the Rules of the DIFC Courts or “RDC”.
- The legal basis for the Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts’ power to issue practice directions.
- The scope of application of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025: Access to Justice in Employment Disputes (the “Practice Direction”).
- A detailed discussion of the decision may be found in this insight article here. Some of the headlines arising from Pernella are:
- Costs for amendments will not ordinarily be awarded. The Practice Direction “qualifies” what would otherwise be the effect of other provisions in the RDC on costs.
- However, costs were awarded on the indemnity basis for unreasonableness in putting forward a deficient pleading and then abandoning it. This is the first decision awarding indemnity costs under the Practice Direction.
- The Practice Direction is a “comprehensive code” for costs in employment cases, although the Court declined to determine whether the cost consequences of accepting an offer under RDC 32 apply in employment cases.
- Tom is instructed for the Defendant in these proceedings by Lisa Bryson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP’s Dubai office.
