Privacy Settings

Claim No: SCT 412/2023

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
BEFORE SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

BETWEEN

NIARI

Claimant

and

NUSEEB

Defendant

JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

UPON the claim having been filed on 17 October 2023 and amended on 14 November 2023

AND UPON the Defendant failing to file a defence

AND UPON a hearing having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 4 January 2024, with the Claimant’s representative in attendance and the Defendant failing to appear

AND UPON a second hearing having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi 5 January 2024, with the Claimant’s representative and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 6,433.19.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the amount of AED 322.16.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue:11 January 2024
At: 9am

THE REASONS

Parties

1. The Claimant is Niari (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE.

2. The Defendant is Nuseeb (the “Defendant”), a company registered in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

The Claim

3. The Claimant supplied equipment to the Defendant pursuant to the hire Contract dated 24 January 2022 (the “Contract”). As the equipment remained on the Defendant’s premises, the Claimant issued monthly invoices thereafter.

4. The Claimant is now seeking payment in relation to the outstanding invoices from February 2023 in the amount of AED 37,785.16 allegedly owed by the Defendant pursuant to the Contract.

5. The Claimant submits that the invoices were delivered to the Defendant and upon receipt, the Defendant placed a ‘received stamp’ on the invoices, therefore making those invoices payable. As such, there is no legal justification for the Defendant’s reluctance to settle the outstanding amount.

The Defence

6. The Defendant failed to provide any written defence, however, at the Hearing, the Defendant submitted that the purchase order clearly mentions the duration of the contract to be 30 days only and is not subject to automatic renewal.

7. The Defendant further submits that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to collect its equipment and it should not have waited for the Defendant’s confirmation to do so on the premises as the duration of the contract is 30 days only.

8. The Defendant is of the view that it should not be asked to pay for something that it did not use.

9. With regards to the stamp on the invoices, the Defendant highlighted that the stamp explicitly states the following “received for auditing only/receiving this invoice is not a confirmation that its contents are accepted by the company” and therefore it should not be held responsible for payment as no confirmation was ever sent to the Claimant.

10. Furthermore, the Defendant confirmed that it had already settled several previous invoices submitted by the Claimant and it is not willing to do the same.

Discussion

11. The jurisdiction clause is outlined in the Claimant’s standard terms and conditions and reads as below:

“Governing law and dispute resolution: the Hire Agreement is governed by the laws of the shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”). Any dispute arising out or from or in connection with these conditions or a relevant hire Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the DIFC.”

12. Further to the above, I am satisfied that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.

13. Given that the equipment was never returned to the Claimant, the Claimant kept on charging the Defendant for the months of February, March, April and May 2022, and submitted the invoices accordingly.

14. Whether the Defendant is eligible to pay any amounts depends on the terms of the Contract agreed between the parties.

15. The Contract stipulates the duration of the hire to be as follows:

“Hire period: All equipment is considered on hire immediately after departing our facility and only ends when equipment is returned to our facility between 7am to 6pm from Saturday to Thursday.”

16. The Contract is silent on whose responsibility it is to return the equipment.

Is the contract subject to automatic renewal?

17. Notwithstanding the hire period mentioned above, the first page of the Contract states the delivery date to be 24 January 2022 and collection date to be 23 February 2022.

18. In addition, the purchase order issued by the Defendant mentions the duration of the contract (i.e. 30 days) from 25 January 2022 to 23 February 2022.

19. There is nothing in the Contract nor the purchase order which suggests that the Contract can be automatically renewed. Therefore, I find that the Contract is not subject to automatic renewal.

20. Further to the above, both documents refer to 23 February 2022 as the end of the Contract date as no extension was sought by the Defendant. Therefore, I am of the view that the Claimant should have collected its equipment in line with the Contract and should not have charged the Defendant.

21. The Claimant’s statement of account suggests that there is an amount of AED 6,433.19 pending from AED 27,300 in respect of the month of February. Therefore, I shall grant this amount in favour of the Claimant.

Is the Defendant liable to pay all the outstanding amount?

22. As the Contract ends on 23 February 2023, I find that the Defendant is liable to pay the February invoice in the remaining amount of AED 6,433.19.

23. Given that I have already determined that there is no automatic renewal of the Contract, I find that the Defendant is not liable to pay anything further.

24. With regards to the invoices, even if it was received by the Defendant, it clearly mentions that receipt of such invoices is not to be considered as an acknowledgement of its content. As such, the Defendant is not eligible to pay the remaining amount.

Findings

25. Accordingly, I hereby order that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 6,433.19

26. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee proportionate to the judgment sum in the amount of AED 322.16.