Claim No: SCT 018/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SCT
JUDGE
BETWEEN
LOGAN EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Claimant
and
LAYDIA DIGITAL (LLC)
Defendant
| Hearing | : 27 February 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judgment | : 4 March 2020 |
JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPONthe Claim Form being filed on 21 January 2020
AND UPONthe Defendant’s Response being filed on 30 January and 2 February 2020
AND UPONthis claim being called for a Consultation on 12 February 2020 before SCT Judge
AND UPONa Hearing being held before SCT Judge Nassir Al Nassir on 27 February 2020, with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance
AND UPONreviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum ofAED 5,400.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant post judgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum effective from the date Judgment is entered.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court Fee in the sum ofAED 367.50.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 4 March 2020
At: 1pm
THE REASONS
Parties
1. The Claimant is Logan Equipment Rental LLC (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE
2. The Defendant is Laydia Digital LLC (the “Defendant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE and who had hired a 12m electric scissor lift (the “Machine”) from the Claimant.
Background and Procedural History
3. The underlying dispute arises over an unpaid invoice pursuant to a quotation accepted by the Defendant, following which the Defendant failed to pay the Claimant the sums due under the said quotation and its terms and conditions.
4. On 21 January 2020, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts
5. On 30 January and 2 February 2020, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service with its intention to defend the claim.
6. The matter was called for Consultation before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 12 February 2020, however, the parties failed to reach an agreement, therefore, the matter was listed for a hearing before me on 27 February 2020.
7. After reviewing all of the documents and evidence submitted on the Court file, I give my judgment below.
The Claim
8. The Claimant’s case is that upon request of the Defendant, they provided a quotation for the hire of the Machine to the Defendant whereby a weekly rate of AED 3,000 was being charged, with delivery and collection fees of AED 800. The Defendant then issued a LPO for the amount of AED 3,800 plus VAT for the hire of the Machine.
9. The Claimant alleges that, pursuant to the terms in the quotation, it was the Defendant’s responsibility to inform the Claimant 2 days in advance of any off hire of the Machine. The Claimant further stated that the Defendant was reminded of this term after one week, however, the Defendant indicated that they would revert to the Claimant in regard to the exact date of the off hire, as the Machine was still in use.
10. The Claimant also claims that, on 16 February 2018, the Defendant informed them that the Machine was no longer required, and, on 17 February 2018, the Machine was delivered to the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that due to the site restrictions of the Defendant, they could not deliver or collect the Machine, and the parties therefore agreed that the Machine would be delivered or returned by the Defendant. This was indicated as “outside recovery”.
11. Subsequently, the Claimant issued an invoice addressed for the Defendant for the total amount of AED 5,400. This amount includes 12 days of the hire of the Machine, with a starting date of 6 February 2018 (the day after the Machine was delivered to the site) until the 16 February 2018 (the date that the Defendant informed the Claimant that they no longer require the Machine). The Claimant also asserts that they have never received any cash payment from the Defendant for the hire of the Machine.
The Defence
12. The Defendant alleges that they specifically required the Machine for one week and they had, therefore, issued the LPO for the amount of only AED 3,800 plus VAT. The Defendant further stated that if they required the Machine for a longer time, they would have provided a different LPO pursuant to the terms and conditions of the quotation. However, the Defendant alleges that this did not happen.
13. Furthermore, the Defendant refers to the payment terms on the Claimant’s quotation stating that payment must be made by cash or current dated cheques before delivery. The Defendant claims that the Claimant would therefore not deliver the Machine if payment was not made. The Defendant claims to have paid the Claimant in cash, however no receipt or proof of this payment was obtained. Lastly, the Defendant submits that it was the Claimant’s obligation to collect the Machine from the Defendant’s site. Therefore, the Defendant alleges that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum claimed.
Discussion
Jurisdiction
14. The parties are both registered and located outside of the DIFC
15. Article 5(2) of the judicial authority law
(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. . .
(f) . . . 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.”
16. Therefore, pursuant to the JAL as amended, I am satisfied that the DIFC Courts have the authority to hear and determine this claim.
Findings
17. The Claimant provided the Defendant with the Quotation on 3 February 2018 for rental of the Machine whereby a weekly rate of AED 3,000 was being charged, with delivery and collection fees of AED 800.
18. Subsequently and on the same day, the Defendant sent the Claimant a LPO for the amount of AED 3,800 plus VAT for the hire of the Machine. When the Machine was delivered to the Defendant, the parties signed a form entitled the ‘Rental Agreement’ (the “Form”). On this Form it was indicated that the delivery method is “outside recovery’ which means that the Defendant is responsible for the delivery and return of the Machine. This was agreed between the parties due to the site restrictions of the Defendant.
19. On 16 February 2018, the Defendant informed the Claimant that the Machine was no longer required. On 17 February 2018, the Defendant returned the Machine to the Claimant and the off-hire notice was signed and provided which, again, stated the delivery method as “outside recovery”.
20. The Claimant argues that the Defendant is liable to pay for the hire of the Machine until the day that they were informed that the Machine was no longer required and the Machine was returned. The Claimant also adds that they contacted the Defendant one day prior to the weekly hire in regard to the return of the Machine. In response, the Defendant indicated that they still required the Machine and that they would inform the Claimant of the exact date of the off-hire.
21. The Defendant argues that the LPO was issued for only one week, and that they should not be liable to pay the Claimant for the extra days charged to them. The Defendant further argues that they have paid cash for the one week hire upon delivery of the Machine and that it was the Claimant’s responsibility to collect the Machine.
22. For the avoidance of doubt, the LPO is constituted to be an acceptance of the Quotation, including its terms and conditions. Pursuant to the facts and the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Claimant and the Defendant entered into an agreement for one week. However, I am also satisfied that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Quotation, it is the Defendant’s responsibility to inform the Claimant in writing a minimum of 2 days in advance that the Machine is no longer needed.
23. Even in the case that the Defendant omitted to inform the Claimant, the Defendant was aware that the Claimant was not able to collect the Machine due to the Defendant’s site restrictions and that the Defendant was responsible for the return of the Machine as agreed by the parties.
24. The total sum for the period that the Machine was in possession of the Defendant, being 6 February 2018 to 16 February 2018, amounts to AED 5,400 including VAT. The Defendant did not provide any evidence that the amount of AED 3,800 plus VAT has been paid to the Claimant, therefore the remaining outstanding amount is AED 5,400 including VAT.
25. In review of this claim and all of the submissions contained within the court file, I have determined that the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant the full amount of the unpaid invoice.
Conclusion
26. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 5,400 plus 9% interest per annum from the date the Judgment is entered as per Practice Direction No. 4 of 2017.
27. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 367.50.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 4 March 2020
At: 1pm