Claim No. SCT 360/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
MACHELM
Claimant/Appellant
and
MADGE
Defendant/Respondent
ORDER OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 28 April 2022 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment of SCT Judge Delvin Sumo dated 18 April 2022
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material in the case file
AND UPON reviewing 53.91 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s Appeal Notice be granted due to its success in meeting the requirements of RDC 53.91.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Registrar
Date of issue: 9 May 2022
Time: 9am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Claimant in this Claim, against the Judgment issued on 18 April 2022 (the “Judgment”). The Appeal Notice dated 28 April 2022 sets out the Claimant’s request to determine permission to appeal against the Judgment on the papers.
2. The background of this Claim is relevantly set out in the Judgment and need not be repeated in the course of this decision.
3. In accordance with RDC 53.91, permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Appeal notice filed by the Claimant, I find that the Appeal meets the requirements under RDC 53.91. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. In the Appeal Notice, the Claimant states the grounds for appeal to be as follows:
“in order to prove the inspections that are approved as note (not revised and resubmit) and to prove the percentage of work completed. The Claimant also adds that the expert failed to visit the site to estimate the completed work properly.”
6. The above statement can be construed to be a position from which the Claimant can argue that there has been error on the part in reaching the conclusion set out in the Judgment.
7. Therefore, in light of the Claimant’s submission, I am of the view that the Appeal does have a prospect of success and I also do find that is a compelling reason for the Appeal to be heard, and therefore the Appeal satisfy the requirements of RDC 53.91.
8. Each party shall bear their own costs.