November 27, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 438/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
MURAKSA
Claimant
and
MIBLUR
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HAYLEY NORTON
UPON this claim having been filed on 3 November 2023 and amended on 11 November 2023 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the Claim having been called for a Jurisdiction Hearing before SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar Hayley Norton on 23 November 2023 with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance
AND UPON reviewing the case file and submissions contained therein
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The DIFC Courts has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 27 November 2023
At: 12pm
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Muraksa (the “Claimant”), an individual residing in the United Arab Emirates (the “UAE”).
2. The Defendant is Miblur (the “Defendant”), a company registered in the DIFC, Dubai, the UAE.
Procedural Background
3. On 3 November 2023, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment of alleged unpaid employment entitlements from the Defendant in the amount of AED 5,536. On 13 November 2023, the Claimant amended the relief sought in his Claim Form, increasing the total claimed sum to AED 25,000. In support of his Claim, the Claimant has provided, amongst other forms of evidence, a contract of employment dated 31 January 2023 (the “Employment Contract”).
4. On 8 November 2023, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service setting out its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. Thereafter, the SCT Registry proceeded to list a Jurisdiction Hearing before me on 23 November 2023 (the “Jurisdiction Hearing”).
Submissions
5. The Defendant contends that the DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim. The Defendant submits that it has not consented for this Claim to be determined by the SCT.
6. In support of its jurisdictional challenge, the Defendant states:
“We do not accept the jurisdiction of the SCT in this case. This is an employment matter and we understand consent of all parties is required for the SCT to have jurisdiction. Miblur do not accept the SCT is appropriate to hear this proceeding.”
7. In response, the Claimant refutes the submissions provided by the Defendant and maintains that the DIFC Courts is the correct forum to hear and determine this Claim as the Defendant is registered and located within the DIFC.
Can the DIFC Courts hear and determine this Claim?
8. Article 5(A) of the Judicial Authority Law, Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended, (the “JAL”) sets out the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction over:
“(a) Civil, commercial and labour claims to which the DIFC or any DIFC Body, DIFC Establishment or Licensed DIFC Establishment is a party;
(b) Civil, commercial and labour 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;
(c) Civil, commercial and labour 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; . . .
(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.”
9. For cases to be heard in the SCT, first, they must first fall within the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction by engaging any of the jurisdictional gateways set out in the abovementioned Article.
10. Upon reviewing the Employment Contract, I find that the Defendant is a DIFC registered entity thereby engaging the jurisdictional gateway under Article 5(A)(1)(a) of the JAL. Therefore, it must follow that the DIFC Courts has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.
11. Each party shall bear its own costs.
