Claim No: SCT 118/2017
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
IN THE
COURT
BETWEEN
HEDDA LEGAL CONSULTANCY (DUBAI BRANCH)
Claimant
and
HECTA SERVICES
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT
JUDGE
UPONthis claim having been called on 6 June 2017 for a Jurisdiction
AND UPONthe parties failure to settle the claim by 8 June 2017;
AND UPONthe parties consent for the Jurisdiction Application to be dealt with on paper;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.The Defendant’s Application to contest jurisdiction is denied.
2. The DIFC Courts
Issued by:
Nassir Al Nasser
Judicial Officer
Date: 11 June 2017
At: 12pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1.The Claimant filed a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal
2. In response to the Claim, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service
3. The Defendant also submits that it always acted as agent for the body corporate as duly appointed and/or authorized body corporate manager in proceedings brought against it in the DIFC Courts by a Unit owner, from a DIFC registered body corporate (namely Heck Building); expecting Heck Building body corporate to reimburse and/or pay for the attendant legal costs thereof.
4. The Claimant submits that the Defendant contested jurisdiction of the SCT on the basis that the Defendant is not a DIFC Registered entity and there is no agreement between the parties to be subject to the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts
5. The Claimant’s submissions also rely on Article 5 of the judicial authority law
6. The Claimant argues that it has acted as the Defendant’s legal representative by appearing before the DIFC Courts, in particular, appearing before the Court
7. The jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts is determined by Article 5(A) of the Judicial Authority Law, Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended, which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:
“(a) Civil or commercial claims and actions to which the DIFC or any DIFC Body, DIFC Establishment or Licensed DIFC Establishment is a party;
(b) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to a contract or promised contract, whether partly or wholly concluded, finalised or performed within DIFC or will be performed or is supposed to be performed within DIFC pursuant to express or implied terms stipulated in the contract;
(c) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to any incident or transaction which has been wholly or partly performed within DIFC and is related to DIFC activities; . . .
(e) Any claim or action over which the Courts have jurisdiction in accordance with DIFC Laws and DIFC Regulations. . .
(2) . . . civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with [the DIFC Courts] whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”
8. Both parties are not registered companies in the DIFC, nor did they agree that in case of a dispute the DIFC Courts would have jurisdiction to hear and determine their dispute. However, the Claimant appeared on behalf of the Defendant in legal proceedings before the DIFC Courts, as their legal representative. As such, the Claimant is claiming a sum of money related to a performance within the DIFC and related to the DIFC. Although there was no written agreement between the parties, by the parties conduct, the Defendant accepted that the Claimant would appear as its legal representative in a DIFC Courts proceeding. It is not logical for the Claimant to file a case claiming invoices related to a proceeding in the DIFC Courts at another Court.
9. Therefore, I am of the view that the DIFC Courts, pursuant to Article 5A of the Judicial Authority Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended, has the Jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim. I am also satisfied that the parties conduct is enough to establish that there is an agreement, albeit not in writing.