[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Napoleon v Norris [2024] DIFC SCT 167 (30 May 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_167.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 167

[New search] [Help]

Napoleon v Norris [2024] DIFC SCT 167

May 30, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 167/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS

BETWEEN

NAPOLEON

Claimant

and

NORRIS

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service dated 2 Mah 2024 setting out its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge”)

AND UPON this Claim having been called for a Jurisdiction Hearing before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 23 May 2024, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge is dismissed.

2. The DIFC Courts has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

3. Each party shall bear his own costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date: 30 May 2024
At: 2pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

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

2. The Defendant is Norris (the “Defendant”), a company registered and located in Dubai, UAE.

3. On 30 April 2024, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking unpaid invoices in the sum of AED 388,968.95.

4. On 2 May 2024, the Defendant filed its Acknowledgment of Service contesting the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

5. A jurisdiction hearing was duly listed before me on 23 May 2024 at which the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative appeared.

6. By way of background, pursuant to the terms of the Hire Contract signed by the parties, the Claimant issued 13 invoices at the Defendant’s request pursuant to the Purchase Order. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to pay the invoices without providing a legal justification.

7. The Defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts on the grounds that it has not agreed to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts and that the DIFC Courts should not have exclusive jurisdiction. The Defendant submits that clause 41 of the Claimant’s Terms and Conditions provide a wide jurisdiction and not an exclusive jurisdiction to the DIFC Courts as “Napoleon reserves the right to pursue legal action in the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (DIFC Courts), Dubai Courts, Abu Dhabi Courts, or any other Court of its preference in any country of choice, to resolve any dispute or recover any dues from the hirer”.

8. The Defendant states that as both parties are registered outside of the DIFC, then the Courts of the parties’ domicile shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim.

9. The Claimant submits that the Defendant agreed to the terms set out within the Credit Application Form which provides that the Defendant accepts the Claimant’s standard Terms and Conditions of hire, and clause 13.1 provides as follows:

“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 laws of Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”). Any dispute arising out of 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.”

10. The Claimant submits that Clause 32 of the Terms and Conditions of the Hire Contract “Napoleon Terms and Conditions” always supersede and take authority over all customer purchase order terms and conditions.

11. Although the above-mentioned document is not signed by the Defendant, I find that, the Defendant’s action of accepting the hire equipment is to be treated as the Defendant accepting the Claimant’s terms and conditions.

12. I find that the Credit Application Form was signed by an authorized signatory of the Defendant, along with the Defendant’s acceptance to the Claimant’s standard terms and conditions, and the Hire Contract and the terms & conditions signed by the Defendant in 2023, all of which does not provide for the parties to opt-out of the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

13. As per the last signed terms and conditions in 2023, the Claimant has the right to choose the Court of preference as described. The Claimant chose the DIFC Courts which is mentioned at Clause 41 of the Terms and Conditions referred to by the Defendant.

14. 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 (the “JAL”), 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. . .

. . . 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.”

15. Therefore, I find that the DIFC Courts have the jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL.