[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Naajiya v Nazia [2024] DIFC SCT 229 (21 August 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_229.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 229

[New search] [Help]

Naajiya v Nazia [2024] DIFC SCT 229

August 21, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 229/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

NAAJIYA

Claimant

and

NAZIA

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE DELVIN SUMO

---

UPON this claim having been filed on 5 June 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON this Claim being called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 15 July 2024 with the Claimant in attendance and the Defendant failing to appear although served notice of the Claim (the “Consultation”)

AND UPON the Order of SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 15 July 2024 staying the proceedings until 19 August 2024 to allow the Claimant to file further submissions on the point of jurisdiction

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: 21 August 2024
At: 10am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Naajiya, an individual residing in Abu Dhabi, UAE (the “Claimant”).

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

Background

3. On 5 June 2024, 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 AED 12,000 (the “Claim”).

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

5. On 15 July 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”).

6. At the Consultation the Claimant requested time to obtain a copy of the agreement between the Claimant and Defendant and make further submissions on the point of jurisdiction.

7. On 15 July 2024, the Order of SCT Judge Delvin Sumo was issued staying the proceedings until 19 August 2024 to allow the Claimant to file further submissions.

8. On 15 and 19 August 2024, the Claimant filed further submissions (the “Submissions”).

Can the DIFC Courts hear and determine this Claim?

9. Neither party is, or was, a DIFC registered or licensed entity and there is no evidence to suggest that the transactions were partly or wholly performed within the DIFC or related to DIFC activities.

10. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “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.”

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Upon reviewing the Submissions, it appears that it 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. Therefore, I find 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.

14. Therefore, I dismiss the Claimant’s Claim for AED 12,000 on the grounds that the DIFC Courts lacks jurisdiction over this Claim.

Conclusion

15. 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.

16. Each party shall bear their own costs.