July 17, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 122/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
NALANI
Claimant/Respondent
and
(1) NIKHOLAI
NILES
Defendants/Applicants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE
UPON reviewing the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maitha AlShehhi (the “Judge”) dated 26 June 2024 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON reviewing the Defendants’ Appeal Notice dated 2 July 2024 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Defendants’ Application”)
AND UPON considering the documents and submissions filed by both parties and recorded on the case file
AND UPON hearing and considering the oral submissions of the Claimant and Defendants’ representatives made at a hearing held on 16 July 2024 (the “Hearing”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants’ Application is refused.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 17 July 2024
At: 12pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal given on the 26 June of this year. Permission can only be granted where the Court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success, that is to say, a realistic prospect and not a fanciful one.
2. Article 30 of the lease agreement provides that the landlord may terminate the lease on 7 days’ written notice if any sum due under the lease remains unpaid for 30 calendar days after becoming due for payment, whether it is formally demanded or not.
3. At the time the Judge heard the case, there was no doubt that the payment of the sums due for May 2024 were over 30 days late. It is also clear that the previous payments for February to April 2024 had been paid well over 30 days late. By the time of the hearing before the Small Claims Tribunal the arrears of rent for February to April 2024 had been paid. Further, it is now accepted by the Claimant that arrears of rent for May 2024 have now been paid. There is nothing now due under the agreement in respect of these months. But that does not affect the legal position. The payments were made consistently late and often by well over 30 days.
4. It follows that the Claimant was entitled to exercise its rights under Article 30 of the agreement. The contrary is not, in my view, arguable.
5. The agreement made in May 2023 for payments to be made in cash in advance every month may well have been made in those terms, but it does not affect the position in the case here, where the payments were late on any view.
6. It follows that there is no realistic prospect of the appeal being successful, and permission to appeal must be refused.
