[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Normand v Nestor [2024] DIFC SCT 211 (02 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_2117.html

[New search] [Help]

Normand v Nestor [2024] DIFC SCT 211

July 02, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 211/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

NORMAND

Claimant

and

NESTOR

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

---

UPON the claim having been filed on 23 May 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON a consultation having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 2 July 2024, with the Claimant in attendance and the Defendant failing to attend although served notice of the Claim (the “Consultation”)

AND PURSUANT TORule 4.12 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claim shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 2 July 2024
At: 11am

THE REASONS

1. The Claimant is Normand (the “Claimant”), an individual residing in Dubai, the UAE.

2. The Defendant is Nestor (the “Defendant”), an individual residing in Dubai, the UAE.

3. The Claimant is seeking payment from the Defendant for work performed in the amount of AED 8,750.

4. The Claimant relies on the signed agreement dated 9 May 2024 which reads as follows (the “Agreement”):

“This is to confirm that I Nestor owe Mr Normand a sum of AED 8,750 against Inv. for the project completed in Dubai.

Mr Normand has requested for a cash payment against this invoice and we have agreed this payment to be made no later than 10th May 2024”

Can the DIFC Courts hear and determine this Claim?

5. RDC 53.2 requires that the SCT hear only cases that fall “within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts”. 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:

“(1) The Court of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine:

(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) The Court of First Instance may hear and determine any 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.”

6. For cases to be heard in the SCT, first, they must first fall within the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction by engaging any of the jurisdictional gateways set out in the abovementioned Article.

7. On the basis that both parties are not located in the DIFC, I asked the Claimant at the Consultation to confirm whether the Defendant’s company is located in the DIFC, and he confirmed that he is unaware if it is physically located in the UAE.

8. I also asked the Claimant to confirm whether there is any other agreement wherein it states expressly in writing that the parties will opt in to the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction to resolve any dispute and no agreement of this nature exists.

9. The Agreement confirms that the Claimant is owed the money, however, makes no reference to the DIFC whatsoever.

10. Given that that Agreement was not performed in the DIFC nor was there any actions performed in DIFC nor was there any agreement in place to bring the Claim to the DIFC Courts in accordance with Article 5(A) of the JAL, I am of the view that the DIFC Courts’ do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

11. It follows that the Claim be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

12. Each party shall bear its own costs.