[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Nilib v Nerom [2024] DIFC SCT 331 (10 January 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_331.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 331

[New search] [Help]

Nilib v Nerom [2023] DIFC SCT 331

January 10, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No. SCT 331/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

NILIB

Claimant

and

NEROM

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE DELVIN SUMO

---

UPON this Claim having been called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 10 January 2024 (the “Consultation”)

AND UPON reviewing the case file and submissions contained therein

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This Claim be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 10 January 2024
At: 12pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Nilib, an individual based in Russia (the “Claimant”).

2. The Defendant is Nerob, a company based in Dubai, the UAE (the “Defendant”).

Background

3. On 31 August 2023, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment of sums allegedly owed by the Defendant to the Claimant in the amount of USD 400 (the “Claim”) pursuant to tax invoice and a voucher entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant dated 16 April 2022 (the “Agreement”).

4. The Defendant failed to file any acknowledgement of service.

5. On 10 January 2024, a consultation was listed before me at which the Claimant attended and the Defendant failed to appear, although served notice of Claim (the “Consultation”).

Can the DIFC Courts hear and determine this Claim?

6. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) 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:

“(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.”

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

8. Upon review of the case file and submissions contained therein, I find there is no evidence to suggest that the transaction was partly or wholly performed within the DIFC nor was it related to DIFC activities. In the absence of a sufficient nexus between the Claim and the DIFC, the DIFC Courts may still have jurisdiction over the Claim if it can be shown that the parties sought to ‘opt in’ to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts, pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL.

9. Upon reviewing the Agreement, it appears that the Agreement does not contain an express clause by virtue of which the DIFC Courts would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the Claim in accordance with Article 5(A)(2) of the JAL.

10. At the Consultation, I asked the Claimant if he has any other documents to address this point and to demonstrate that there is an express clause by virtue of which the DIFC Courts would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the Claim. The Claimant confirmed that all documents in relation to this Claim have been provided to the Court.

11. Considering the above, I am of the view that the DIFC Courts cannot exercise its jurisdiction over this Claim. The DIFC Courts do not have default jurisdiction over this claim as the parties are both based outside of the DIFC and the other gateways of the JAL do not apply.

12. Therefore, I dismiss the Claimant’s Claim for USD 400 on the ground that the DIFC Courts lacks jurisdiction over this Claim.

Conclusion

13. Accordingly, for the reasons I have set out above, I find that the DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

14. Each party shall bear their own costs.