October 18, 2022 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 139/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
BETWEEN
LIUM
Claimant
and
LARTIS
Defendant
| Hearing : | 10 October 2022 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 18 October 2022 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPON the Claim Form being filed on 18 April 2022
AND UPON a Second Hearing being held before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 10 October 2022, with the Claimant’s and Defendant’s representatives in attendance
AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence submitted in the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 56,502.60.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the amount of AED 2,827.06.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge
Date of issue: 18 October 2022
At: 8am
THE REASONS
Parties
1. The Claimant is Lium (the “Claimant”), a company specialising in the provision of wholesale electrical equipment.
2. The Defendant is Lartis (the “Defendant”), a company that purchased electrical equipment from the Claimant.
Background and Hearing
3. The Claimant and the Defendant engaged in a business transaction whereby the Claimant sold wholesale equipment and materials to the Defendant. In terms of the transaction process, a client submits a request for the equipment, after which the Claimant provides the relevant quotation. Once the equipment is delivered to the site, the client signs the relevant invoice.
4. This claim relates to the recovery of payment regarding invoices that have been allegedly pending payment from December 2020 to April 2021, in the total amount of AED 56,502.60. It is alleged by the Claimant that when payment was requested from the Defendant for the invoices, the Defendant continued to postpone their request to pay, and provided the Claimant with postdated cheques that were not cleared for payment.
5. On 18 April 2022, the Claimant filed a case against the Defendant in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) seeking payment from the Defendant in the amount of AED 56,502.60.
6. The Court scheduled a Consultation before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 1 September 2022, but the parties were unable to reach a settlement.
7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Second Hearing held on 10 October 2022 with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance.
8. In support of its Claim, the Claimant presented the original invoices and explained the process by which each invoice is generated and how the equipment is delivered to the Defendant – including having the client sign on each invoice for confirmation. The Claimant also added that the invoices submitted to the Court were generated from December 2020 and have not been paid to date.
9. In reply, the Defendant submits that the ownership of the Defendant company was changed on September 2021 and, in addition, management and the staff were also subject to change. Therefore, the Defendant contends that it can only evaluate the Claim based on the documents provided by the Claimant and its own records, if any.
10. The Defendant argues that the Claimant referred to “Terms of Business” which was not part of any agreement with the Defendant.
11. The Defendant submits that, as per the Terms and Conditions of the Credit Application the Claimant should not consider any local purchase order (“LPO”) unless signed by an authorised signatory. Therefore, the Defendant argues that it should not be held liable for any LPOs signed by someone other than an authorised signatory.
12. The Defendant argues that the LPOs and delivery notes presented by the Claimant were not delivered to the person specified in each LPO.
Findings
13. The Terms of Business shared by the Claimant states that the dispute is governed by the DIFC Law of Contract and the relevant case law and principles concerning a breach of contract. Pursuant to Clause 16 of the Terms of Business, as stated:
“16. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution: we reserve the right to take legal action to recover any unpaid amount which has become due and owing for goods provided and/or work performed. These terms of business, and the entire relationship between the Parties, are all subject to and governed by the laws of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). In the event of a dispute arising out of, or in connection with, these terms of business or any work performed or goods supplied thereunder, the parties agree, by executing these terms that such claims will be brought before the DIFC Courts and all such disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the DIFC courts.”
14. The Court acknowledges the importance of the signed signatory on each LPO sent by the Defendant, but it is also noted that the Claimant was dealing with the ‘old management’ and the Defendant has failed to present any evidence to the Court to suggest that the ‘old management’ opposed the goods delivered nor did it seek to suggest that it did not receive them at the time of delivery.
15. In addition, the Defendant’s old management did not raise any issues with delivery, or the goods received or request return of goods. As such, the Court deems that the goods were received and delivered to the Defendant in a satisfactory condition. Pursuant to Clause 14 of the Terms of Business, as stated:
“14. Return of Goods: In no circumstances may goods supplied against a firm order be returned without our prior written consent and the receipt of your advice note stating the reason for the return and the date and number of our invoice. All goods returned must be securely packed and, unless we arrange collection, consigned carriage paid. If we collect we reserve the right to make a handling charge, and the issue of our collection note will not bind us to issue any credit in respect of the goods.”
16. As the Defendant’s new management is responsible for the Defendant’s old transactions under the Defendant’s name, I find that it is liable to pay all the invoices signed and received, regardless of whether these were signed by the ‘old management’.
17. This is a very straightforward matter; the Claimant delivered the electrical equipment to the site and each invoice had been signed by an employee of the Defendant. Therefore, I find no reason for the Claimant not to be awarded the amounts to which it is owed.
Conclusion
18. As such it is hereby ordered that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 56,502.60 for the pending invoices. The Defendant shall also pay the Claimant the DIFC Court filing fee in the amount of AED 2,827.07.
