Privacy Settings

Claim No. SCT 305/2022

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

LUWAIT

Claimant

and

LISTE

Defendant

---

---

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON this claim being filed on 11 August 2022

AND UPON a Hearing being held before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 2 November 2022 with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 38,062.50.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the court fees in the sum of AED 1,903.12.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 14 November 2022
At: 3:45pm

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Luwait, trading under the name of Lert (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE.

2. The Defendant is Liste (the “Defendant”), a company registered in Media Free Zone, Al Fujairah, UAE.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute is in regards to the non-payment of invoices issued to the Defendant by the Claimant pursuant to an agreement dated 21 February 2022 (the “Agreement”).

4. On 11 August 2022, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment of unpaid invoices in the amount of AED 38,062.50.

5. On 26 August 2022, the Defendant filed its defence to the claim.

6. Thereafter, in accordance with the Rules of the DIFC Courts, a Consultation was held before SCT Judge Ayman Saey with both parties’ representatives in attendance. However, the parties failed to reach a settlement.

7. Thereafter, a hearing was held before me on 2 November 2022, at which the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives attended (the “Hearing”).

8. At the Hearing the Claimant sought permission of the court to amend its claim form. Such permission was granted. and on 3 November 2022, the Claimant amended its claim form and paid the relevant uplifted Court filing fee on 7 November 2022.

The Claim

9. The Claimant’s case is that it had entered into the Agreement with the Defendant for public relation services (the “Services”). The Services commenced during March 2022 and continued until 16 June 2022, at which point in time, the Defendant terminated the Agreement.

10. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to pay the monthly retainers pursuant to the Agreement and that the Defendant has only paid 50% of March 2022 retainer. In addition, the Claimant further submits that the Defendant has not raised any concerns in relation to the invoices throughout their contractual relationship and instead requested to extend the Agreement for an additional month for June 2022.

11. The Claimant claim can be broken down as follows:

The Defence

12. The Defendant in its submission approved the payment to be made for the March Invoice, the April Invoice and the May Invoice. However, at the Hearing, the Defendant disputed the invoices of May 2022, the June Invoice and the notice period.

13. The Defendant submits that the Claimant did not carry out its service in accordance with the Agreement. The Defendant submits that it raised concerns to the Claimant by way of emails dated 28 and 29 March 2022, and 22 April 2022.

14. In relation to the May Invoice, the Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to carry out a significant amount of activity, and that the Defendant did not receive any monthly reports from the Claimant which highlighted the amount of activities that were allegedly carried performed. The Defendant did confirm that it used to receive weekly reports on a semi-regular basis. The Defendant continued that the Claimant, as per the terms of the Agreement, was obliged to prepare two press releases in a month. However, during the month of May 2022 the Defendant only received only 1 press release through Khaleej times. In addition, the Defendant submits that it was informed that an interview with the radio station “Talk FM” had been arranged however the Defendant submits that it did not receive the recording of such interview. In addition, the Defendant submits that the Claimant provided a weekly report on 13 May 2022, and the Defendant was assured that a press release would be published in Gulf Business however the Defendant asserts that the press release was never published.

15. Within its submissions, the Defendant states that “Adam Bradford, despite the reluctance on the part of Woollams to carry out its obligations, is prepared to honor the invoice of the month of May,2022.” [sic]. However, at the Hearing the Defendant disputed the May Invoice.

16. The Defendant asserts that by the end of May 2022, the Agreement came to an end in accordance with the terms set out therein. Thereafter, on 3 June 2022, the parties held a meeting (the “Meeting”). During the meeting, the Defendant asserts that a verbal agreement was made to extend the terms of the Agreement for another month, namely, to June 2022. The Defendant asserts that it agreed to extend the Agreement on the following grounds:

17. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to perform its obligations during the month of June 2022 and on 16 June 2022, the Defendant sent the Claimant an email notice to terminate the Agreement. Following which, the Claimant responded to accept the termination and waive the June Invoice.

Jurisdiction

18. 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 have jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:

19. The parties are both companies registered outside the jurisdiction of the DIFC, however, by virtue of the Agreement, I note that the parties have agreed to ‘opt-in’ to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts pursuant to “the Governing Law”, which reads as follows:

20. Therefore, I am of the view that the DIFC Courts have the jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim in accordance with the above clause and Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL.

Findings

21. I will not discuss the March Invoice and the April Invoices, as these have already been agreed between the parties within their submissions and at the Hearing. However, I will discuss the May Invoice, the June Invoice, and the notice period as per the Agreement.

22. In relation to the invoice of May Invoice, the Defendant in its submissions agreed to honour the invoice along with March Invoice and the April Invoices. However, at the Hearing the Defendant then sought to dispute the May Invoice arguing that the Claimant did not carry out a significant amount of activity during the said month. The Defendant failed to provide evidence to show that the Claimant did not fulfil its obligations.

23. The Claimant on the other hand, provided a monthly report of the activities carried out from March to June 2022. According to the report, it appears that the Claimant did in fact carry out work throughout May 2022. In addition, by the end of May 2022, when the Agreement came to an end, the Defendant did agree to extend for a further month.

24. Therefore, I find that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Claimant the May Invoice.

25. Turning to the extension of the Agreement, I note that the Defendant submits that the extension was made on several grounds mentioned at paragraph 10 above. However, such grounds were not supported in writing.

26. The Claimant also seeks to claim payment of the June Invoice and the notice period pursuant to the Agreement.

27. In relation to the June Invoice, the Defendant submits that upon terminating the Claimant, they agreed by way of an email dated 16 June 2022 to waive the June Invoice. The email dated 16 June 2022 provides the following “to speed up the process at this point, even though we have drafted and shared the press release for the month of June for you, we will drop the June invoice. At the same time, we would appreciate if you pay the outstanding March, April and May invoices as soon as possible, before the end of this month.”

28. I agree that the Claimant waived the June Invoice but as per the email it appears that it was conditional to the Defendant settling the March Invoice, the April Invoice and the May Invoice before the end of June 2022, which the Defendant failed to do so.

29. In addition, the Claimant provided a summary of the works carried out throughout June 2022.

30. Therefore, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s June Invoice as the conditions within the email have not been met.

31. The Claimant made also a claim for 30 days’ notice period, the Agreement states as follows: “The Company and Luwait can terminate this Agreement at any point in time with a written 30-days’ notice period. In case of early termination of this contract, the company will pay Katch the fees associated with the service up to the date of termination of the Contract. The fees will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for the number of serviced days up to the date of termination.”

32. As established above, the Agreement was extended by the end of May 2022 to June 2022. On 16 June 2022, the Defendant terminated the Agreement which shall be considered as an early termination of the Agreement; therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the fees associated with the service up to the date of termination of the Agreement which is 15 June 2022. Since I have ordered at paragraph 23 above the payment of June Invoice, I believe this covers the part of the fees associated with the service up to the date of termination.

33. Therefore, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 38,062.50.

34. The Defendant shall also pay the Claimant the court fees in the sum of AED 1,903.12.