January 18, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 436/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BETWEEN
NUFUR
Claimant
and
(1) NUJIR
(2) NOPEL
(3) NASTA
(4) NIBIL
Defendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON the Defendants’ Acknowledgments of Service dated 21 and 30 November 2023 and 1 December 2023 setting out their intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “Defendants’ Jurisdictional Challenge”)
AND UPON this Claim having been called for a Jurisdiction Hearing before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 10 January 2024, with the Claimant and the First Defendant’s representative and the Second to Fourth Defendants in attendance
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants’ Jurisdictional Challenge is granted.
2. The DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.
3. This Claim shall be transferred to the DIFC Court of First Instance in accordance with RDC 53.41.
4. Each party shall bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunal.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date: 18 January 2024
At: 1pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Nufur (the “Claimant”), an individual who is a resident in the UAE.
2. The First Defendant is Nujir (the “First Defendant”), a company registered and located in the DIFC, Dubai, UAE.
3. The Second Defendant is Nopel (the “Second Defendant”), an individual who was a former employee of the First Defendant.
4. The Third Defendant is Nasta (the “Third Defendant”), an individual who is an employee of the First Defendant.
5. The Fourth Defendant is Nibit (the “Fourth Defendant”), an individual who was a former employee of the First Defendant.
Background and Preceding History
6. On 2 November 2023, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) against the Defendants seeking declaratory relief.
7. On 21 November 2023, the First Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service contesting the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”).
8. On 22 November 2023, the Claimant amended his claim and included the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants.
9. On 30 November 2023, the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service contesting the jurisdiction of the SCT.
10. A Jurisdiction Hearing was duly listed before me on 10 January 2024 at which the Claimant and the Defendants appeared.
11. The Defendants submit that the SCT has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim and take the position that it would be more appropriate for the claim to be heard in the DIFC Court of First Instance (the “CFI”) for the following reasons:
(1) The Claim falls outside the jurisdiction of the SCT because the relief sought by the Claimant is for (i) declaratory relief; and (ii) production of documents; and
(2) The nature of the claim.
Discussion
12. Upon reviewing the case file, I find that the Claimant’s claim is not a claim to be heard by the SCT. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) provides the following:
“The SCT will hear and determine claims within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts:
(1) where the amount of the claim or the value of the subject matter of the claim does not exceed AED 500,000 or;
(2) where the claim relates to the employment or former employment of a party; and
all parties elect in writing that it be heard by the SCT (there is no value limit for the SCT’s elective jurisdiction in the context of employment claims); or
(3) which do not fall within the provisions of sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) above, but in respect of which:
(a) the amount of the claim or the value of the subject matter of the claim does not exceed AED 1,000,000; and
(b) all parties to the claim elect in writing that it be heard by the SCT, and such election is made in the underlying contract (if any) or subsequent to execution of that contract
(c) where they have been filed with the Small Claims Leasing Tribunal
or
(4) such other claims as may be ordered or directed by the Chief Justice to be heard by the SCT from time to time.”
13. Neither the Claimant’s claim nor the remedy sought fall within any of the above categories.
14. RDC 53.42 provides the SCT Judge with a discretionary power, where appropriate, to transfer claims from the SCT to the CFI, and sets out matters to be taken into consideration when making such an order. The relevant Rule reads as follows:
“Re-allocation
53.41
Where appropriate, the SCT Judge may issue a reasoned order that the small claim be transferred to the Court of First Instance to be progressed as a fresh claim under the procedures followed by the CFI. When deciding whether to do so, the SCT Judge shall have regard to the following matters:
(1) The financial value of the claim or of the subject of the claim;
(2) The nature of the dispute;
(3) The nature of the remedy sought;
(4) The likely complexity of the facts, law or evidence;
(5) The number of parties or likely parties;
(6) The value of any counterclaim or other additional claim and the complexity of any matters relating to it;
(7) The amount of oral evidence which may be required;
(8) The importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings;
(9) The views expressed by the parties at the consultation; and
(10) The circumstances of the parties, including their financial means.”
Finding
15. Having regard to the above, I find that this is a claim that must be heard by the CFI Therefore, in accordance with RDC 53.41(2) and (3), I shall transfer this claim from the SCT to the CFI.
16. In light of the above, it must follow that the Defendants’ Jurisdictional Challenge is granted, the Claim shall be transferred to the CFI.
