Costs on appeal in QFC Regulatory Tribunal proceedings

For the first time, the QFC Courts have provided a published example of a successful appellant recovering costs in proceedings arising from the Qatar Financial Centre ("QFC") Regulatory Tribunal. In Rutherford, Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority ([2026] QIC (A) 9 and [2026] QIC (RT) 1; Case No. RTFIC0002/2025), the Appellate Division awarded the successful appellant up to 50% of its appeal costs and the Regulatory Tribunal subsequently gave effect to that order following remittal.

Whilst the Appellate Division has long possessed a general jurisdiction to award costs, and costs awards are routine in ordinary QFC Court litigation, Rutherford appears to be the first published Regulatory Tribunal appeal in which the Court awarded inter-partes appeal costs and the Regulatory Tribunal subsequently implemented that award.

The decision is therefore significant for two reasons. (i) First, it confirms that parties appealing Regulatory Tribunal decisions may be able to recover at least part of their appellate costs notwithstanding the Tribunal's traditionally restrictive approach to costs. (ii) Secondly, it provides the first published example of the Appellate Division adopting a percentage-based and contingent costs order in a Regulatory Tribunal appeal, awarding 50% of the appellant's costs rather than applying an all-or-nothing approach.

For practitioners and litigants alike, the case raises an important question: has the Appellate Division opened a new route to costs recovery in Regulatory Tribunal proceedings? The answer appears to be yes.

The Regulatory Tribunal's traditional position on costs

The starting point remains Article 24 of the Regulatory Tribunal Regulations and Procedural Rules, which provides that the Tribunal:

"will not normally order one party to pay another's legal costs, but is entitled to do so if it considers that justice so requires."

Unlike ordinary litigation before the QFC Courts, where costs generally follow the event, parties appearing before the Regulatory Tribunal have traditionally proceeded on the assumption that each side will bear its own costs unless exceptional circumstances justify a different outcome.

The policy rationale is understandable. The Regulatory Tribunal performs a specialist supervisory role in relation to decisions of QFC regulatory bodies, and a restrictive costs regime helps ensure that parties are not discouraged from bringing legitimate regulatory challenges.

For many years, this has been regarded as one of the defining characteristics of Regulatory Tribunal proceedings and a significant distinction between proceedings before the Tribunal and proceedings before the Civil and Commercial Court.

The Rutherford decisions

The issue came into focus in Rutherford, Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority.

The Appellant successfully appealed a decision of the Regulatory Tribunal to the Appellate Division of the QFC Court. The Appellate Division allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's earlier decision. However, not all issues between the parties had been resolved and the matter was remitted to the Regulatory Tribunal for further consideration. The costs issue therefore arose in unusual circumstances. The Appellant had succeeded on appeal, but the dispute itself had not yet reached a final conclusion.

In its subsequent costs judgment, the Appellate Division recognised that the Appellant had succeeded in overturning the Regulatory Tribunal's decision. However, the Court also noted that some of the Appellant's arguments had failed and that substantive issues remained unresolved following remittal.
Rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach, the Court crafted a tailored costs order. It held that if the Appellant ultimately succeeded before the Regulatory Tribunal, it would be entitled to recover up to 50% of its appeal costs.

Following remittal, the QFCA informed the Regulatory Tribunal that it no longer opposed the appeal. The Regulatory Tribunal subsequently declined to award costs of the Tribunal proceedings themselves but implemented the Appellate Division's order by awarding 50% of the Appellant's appeal costs, limited to counsel's fees.

Why the 50% costs award may be the most significant part of the decision

If Rutherford is remembered solely as the first published Regulatory Tribunal appeal in which costs were awarded, its wider significance may be overlooked. The more important development may be the Appellate Division's willingness to award a proportion of costs tailored to the circumstances of the appeal. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Rutherford is not that costs were awarded, but how they were awarded.

The Court did not simply apply a "costs follow the event" approach. Nor did it conclude that the Appellant should recover all of its costs because it had succeeded on appeal. Instead, the Court recognised that the Appellant's success was not absolute. The Appellant had succeeded in overturning the Tribunal's decision, but not every argument advanced had been accepted. Furthermore, the appeal did not finally dispose of the dispute, and it remained possible that the Appellant could ultimately fail on the remitted issues.

The Court's solution was to award a capped and contingent recovery of costs. The Appellant would recover a proportion of its appeal costs, but only if it ultimately succeeded before the Regulatory Tribunal. This is important because it provides the clearest indication to date that the Appellate Division may be willing to adopt a proportionate costs solutions where fairness requires.

For practitioners, the key lesson is that costs outcomes need not be binary. The Court may choose to award a percentage of costs, defer the costs decision, make costs contingent upon a future outcome, or otherwise tailor the order to reflect the realities of the litigation.

In that respect, Rutherford may ultimately prove more significant as a costs case than as a Regulatory Tribunal case.

Where does the appellate division's costs jurisdiction come from?

The significance of the Rutherford decisions lies not merely in their outcome, but in what they reveal about the relationship between the Regulatory Tribunal and the wider QFC Court system. Notably, the QFC Civil and Commercial Court Regulations and the Rules and Procedures before the Court apply to proceedings before the Court, including appeals to the Appeal Circuit, but do not apply to proceedings before the Regulatory Tribunal, which operates under a distinct procedural framework.

Article 34 grants the Court a broad discretion to make such order as it thinks fit in relation to costs and provides that the unsuccessful party will generally pay the successful party's costs unless the Court orders otherwise.

The appellate framework is contained in Article 36. Importantly, Article 36.7 provides that the Appeal Circuit may issue any decision or order that could have been made by the First Instance Circuit. The Practice Direction on Appeals further confirms that this power extends to appeals arising from the Regulatory Tribunal.

Taken together, these provisions provide the Appellate Division with an independent source of jurisdiction to award costs on appeal. The result is that the Regulatory Tribunal's restrictive approach to costs does not necessarily prevent recovery of costs incurred in the appellate process itself.

Key Takeaways for Litigants

The Rutherford decisions contain a number of practical lessons for parties considering an appeal from a Regulatory Tribunal decision.

1. Costs on appeal are potentially recoverable

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that appeal costs are not automatically excluded merely because the underlying proceedings originated before the Regulatory Tribunal.

Where an appeal succeeds, the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to award costs and may exercise that jurisdiction notwithstanding the Tribunal's general "no costs" approach

2. Ask for costs expressly

Parties should not assume that costs will be dealt with automatically. A request for costs should form part of the relief sought in the appeal and should be addressed expressly in written submissions.

Rutherford demonstrates that the Appellate Division is willing to consider costs as a discrete issue and tailor its orders to the circumstances of the case

3. Success does not guarantee full recovery

The judgments demonstrate that even a successful appellant may recover only part of its costs. The Court may take into account partial success, unsuccessful arguments, remittal, settlement positions and wider considerations of fairness when determining the appropriate costs order.

4. Consider seeking a percentage-based or contingent costs order

One of the most significant practical lessons arising from Rutherford is that litigants should think strategically about costs relief.

Where an appeal is likely to result in remittal rather than final determination, parties may wish to seek a percentage-based, capped or contingent costs order rather than an immediate award of all costs. The Appellate Division's willingness to award up to 50% of appeal costs demonstrates that such orders are capable of providing a fair middle ground where the ultimate outcome remains uncertain

5. Costs recovery may be a two-step process

Obtaining a favourable costs order from the Appellate Division may not be the end of the matter. As Rutherford illustrates, parties may need to return to the Regulatory Tribunal to secure implementation of the appellate costs order and, if necessary, seek assessment by the Registrar where quantum cannot be agreed.

Looking ahead

The Rutherford decisions do not mark a departure from the Regulatory Tribunal's traditionally cautious approach to costs. Costs awards before the Tribunal itself are likely to remain exceptional under Article 24. However, the judgments clarify that the Appellate Division possesses a distinct costs jurisdiction and may adopt a more flexible, proportionate and outcome-based approach on appeal.

For practitioners, the key lesson is that while costs recovery at first instance remains uncommon, appellate costs may be recoverable and should therefore be considered as part of appeal strategy from the outset.