Privacy Settings

Claim No. SCT 156/2024

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

BETWEEN

NADER

Claimant/Respondent

and

NILES

Defendant/Applicant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE ALI AL MADHANI

UPON a Jurisdiction Hearing held before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 26 June 2024, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri issued 6 August 2024 denying the Defendant’s jurisdictional challenge (the “Judgment”)

AND UPON the Application for Extension of Time filed by the Defendant on 20 August 2024 (the “Application”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is retrospectively accepted.

2. An extension of time for the Defendant to file their permission to appeal application is granted.

3. The Claimant is invited to respond to the permission to appeal application by 4pm at 14 calendar days from the date of issue of this Order.

4. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 11 September 2024
At: 2pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. This Extension of Time Application was brought by the Defendant ahead of its intention to appeal the jurisdictional challenge Judgement (the “Appeal Notice”). The Defendant sought to be permitted to file the Appeal Notice on 3 September 2024 by 4pm. The justification for this is that the Defendant sought legal advice pertaining to the law of accrual of causes of action for the purposes of limitation periods, and that the Claimant would not be prejudiced by the extension of time as he would be compensated with interest in the event that the Defendant is unsuccessful.

2. The Claimant refuted this Application on the basis that the Defendant had ample time to prepare their Appeal Notice, has previously delayed these proceedings, and is already well versed in the area of law it seeks to be advised on, as evidenced in the hearing. Therefore, any extension of time would be unreasonable.

3. While I do not consider the Defendant’s submissions to be of any significant strength, my main concern when addressing applications for the extension of time is prejudice to the other party. As the Claimant has not expressed any prejudice, and no reasonable prejudice can be foreseen, I accept Application.

4. As part of the administrative delay in processing payments close to 4pm, the Appeal Notice appears to have been filed on 4 September 2024, but the actual submission and payment happened on or before 4pm on 3 September 2024. Therefore, no sanctions as to delay will be imposed.

5. I also invite the Claimant to submit his response to the Appeal Notice by 4pm in 14 calendar days from the date of issue of this Order.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.