March 15, 2021 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 034/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
LOTTER
Claimant
and
LETRI
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE DELVIN SUMO
UPON reviewing the Claim Form submitted by the Claimant dated 10 February 2021 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON this Claim having been called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 14 March 2021
AND UPON the Claimant’s representative attending the Consultation and the Defendant failing to appear although served notice of the claim
AND UPON reviewing the case file and submissions contained therein
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claim shall be dismissed.
2. The DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction over this Claim.
3. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge
Date of Issue: 15 March 2021
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Lotter, a company registered in Dubai, UAE (the “Claimant”).
2. The Defendant is Lateri, a company registered in Dubai, UAE (the “Defendant”).
Discussion
3. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) requires that the SCT only hear cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.
4. The jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts is determined by Article 5(A) of the Judicial Authority Law, Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended (the “JAL”), which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts may exercise jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:
i. “(a) Civil or commercial claims and actions to which the DIFC or any DIFC Body, DIFC Establishment or Licensed DIFC Establishment is a party;
ii. (b) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to a contract or promised contract, whether partly or wholly concluded, finalised or performed within DIFC or will be performed or is supposed to be performed within DIFC pursuant to express or implied terms stipulated in the contract;
iii. (c) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to any incident or transaction which has been wholly or partly performed within DIFC and is related to DIFC activities; . . .
iv. (e) Any claim or action over which the Courts have jurisdiction in accordance with DIFC Laws and DIFC Regulations. . .
(2)… civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with [the DIFC Courts] whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”
5. Pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL, the DIFC Courts can exercise its jurisdiction over a matter that is unrelated to the DIFC, where the parties have agreed in writing that any dispute arising between them would be referred to the DIFC Courts for adjudication. Such a provision would allow the parties to ‘opt-in’ to the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction, provided that it clearly demonstrates the parties’ intention to do so.
6. The Claimant filed its claim with the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking the payment of sums allegedly owed to the Claimant by the Defendant in relation to a purchase order dated 4 May 2019 (the “LPO”). In support of its Claim, the Claimant submitted various tax invoices issued to the Defendant pursuant to the LPO. Upon reviewing the LPO and the tax invoices, it appears that the terms and conditions contained both in the LPO and the tax invoices do not contain an express clause by virtue of which the DIFC Courts would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the Claim in accordance with Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL.
7. Considering the abovementioned, I am of the view that, the DIFC Courts cannot exercise its jurisdiction over this Claim. The DIFC Courts do not have default jurisdiction over this claim as the parties are both based outside of the DIFC and the other gateways of the JAL do not apply.
8. Therefore, I dismiss the Claimant’s Claim for AED 5,000 on the grounds that the DIFC Courts lacks jurisdiction over this Claim.
Conclusion
9. The Claimant’s Claim is dismissed due to the Courts’ lack of jurisdiction.
10. Each party shall bear their own costs.
