November 22, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 308/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
MUROT
Claimant/Appellant
and
MAHUB
Defendant/Respondent
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 20 November 2023 seeking permission to appeal against the Order with Reasons of SCT Judge and Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban dated 28 September 2023 (the “Application for Permission to Appeal”)
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material in the case file
AND UPON reviewing Part 53 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application for Permission to Appeal be dismissed due its failure to meet the requirements of RDC 53.107.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 22 November 2023
Time: 11am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Claimant in this Claim, against the Order issued on 28 September 2023 (the “Order”). The Appeal Notice dated 20 November 2023 sets out the Claimant’s request to determine permission to appeal against the Order, however, the application has been made out of time.
2. The background of this Claim is that the Claimant filed a claim against the Defendant on 21 August 2023 seeking a refund for items bought but not received.
3. The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service seeking to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.
4. On 19 September 2023, a Jurisdiction Hearing was held before SCT Judge and Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban, following which, the SCT Judge dismissed the Claim due to lack of jurisdiction.
5. On 20 November 2023, the Claimant filed his Appeal Notice, seeking permission to appeal the Order.
6. In accordance with RDC 53.107, the appellant must file the appellant’s notice at the lower court within 14 days after the date of the decision of the lower Court that the appellant with to appeal.
7. In the matter at hand, the Appellant filed the Appeal Notice significantly out of time. The relevant filing should have been made on 12 October 2023 however instead he filed the Appeal Notice on 20 November 2023 which falls out of the 14 days period.
8. Therefore, in light of the above, I am of the view that the Appeal Notice shall be dismissed as the time for filing an appellant’s notice has expired and the Appellant has failed to provide the Court with a sufficient reason for the delay.
9. Each party shall bear their own costs.
