[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Natalie v Nola [2024] DIFC SCT 124 (25 April 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_124.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 124

[New search] [Help]

Natalie v Nola [2024] DIFC SCT 124

April 25, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 124/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS

BETWEEN

NATALIE

Claimant

and

NOLA

Defendant

---

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

---

UPON the Defendant filing an Acknowledgement of Service seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts dated 25 March 2024 (the “Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge”)

AND UPON this Claim having been called on 24 April 2024 for a Jurisdiction Hearing before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser, with the Claimant’s representative and the Defendant in attendance

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge is dismissed.

2. The DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.

3. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date: 25 April 2024
At: 1pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant filed a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal in respect of non-payment of invoices relating to an Engagement Agreement dated 23 November 2023 (the “Agreement”) which resulted in the Claimant issuing invoices to the Defendant for the total amount of AED 53,901.

2. The Claimant is a company registered outside of the DIFC and the Defendant is an individual with no connection to the DIFC.

3. In response to the Claim, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service contesting the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts on the basis of:

(1) lack of personal connection to the DIFC;

(2) nature of the legal services;

(3) opt-in jurisdiction;

(4) lack of connection between the dispute and the DIFC;

(5) complaint raised with Dubai Legal Affairs Department;

(6) DIFC Courts’ limited statutory jurisdiction;

(7) Protocol of Jurisdiction; and

(8) precedents limiting DIFC Jurisdiction.

4. The Defendant submits that he was forced to sign the Agreement which includes a clause opting-in to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

5. The Claimant submits that the DIFC Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over this claim, in accordance with Article 5(A)(2) of Law No. 16 of 2011, which states that the DIFC Courts“may hear and determine any civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with it whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”

6. The Claimant adds that this claim arises out of the breach of the Agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant, which includes the opt-in jurisdiction clause. Specifically, at Clause 28 of the Agreement:

“any dispute, difference, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Engagement agreement, including (but not limited to) any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, performance, discharge and applicable remedies (“Dispute”), shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC Courts”).”

7. The Defendant argues that the scope of the Agreement relates to issues within a different jurisdiction. At the hearing, I determined that the DIFC Courts have the jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim pursuant to Clause 28 of the Agreement on the basis that the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant is a commercial relationship and the Claimant provides the Defendant with services regardless of its nature and the Defendant shall pay for the services received.

8. 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, 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 or Employment claims and actions to which the DIFC or any DIFC Body, DIFC Establishment or Licensed DIFC Establishment is a party;

(b) Civil or commercial or Employment 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 or Employment 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.”

9. In light of my finding above, I am of the view that the DIFC Courts, pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended, has jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.