Nina v Nolan [2024] DIFC SCT 080 (23 April 2024)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Dubai International Financial Centre

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Nina v Nolan [2024] DIFC SCT 080 (23 April 2024)
Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 80, [2024] DIFC SCT 080

[New search] [Help]

Nina v Nolan [2024] DIFC SCT 080


Claim No: SCT 080/2024


In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai








Hearing :26 March 2024
Judgment :23 April 2024


UPON the Claim Form being filed on 19 February 2024

AND UPON a Hearing being held before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 26 March 2024, with the Claimant’s and Defendant’s representatives in attendance

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence submitted in the Court file


1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount ofAED 88,000.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the amount ofAED 4,701.21.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 23 April 2024
At: 8am



1. The Claimant is Nina (the “Claimant”), a company specialising in the provision of wholesale electrical equipment.

2. The Defendant is Nolan (the “Defendant”), a company that purchased electrical equipment from the Claimant.

Background and Hearing

3. The Claimant and the Defendant engaged in a business transaction whereby the Claimant sold wholesale equipment and materials to the Defendant. In terms of the transaction process, a client submits a request for the equipment, after which the Claimant provides the relevant quotation. Once the equipment is delivered to the site, the client signs the relevant invoice.

4. This claim relates to the recovery of payment regarding two invoices that have been allegedly pending payment in January 2023 and February 2023, in the total amount of AED 93,959.95. It is alleged by the Claimant that when payment was requested from the Defendant for the invoices, the Defendant continued to postpone their request to pay.

5. The Parties did try to enter into a payment plan for the whole amount, and an instalment schedule was agreed, but due to the delay in payment by the Defendant the Claimant proceeded in filing a claim.

6. On 16 February 2024, the Defendant transferred the amount of AED 5,960 towards the claim amount, the amount left according to the parties is AED 88,000.

7. On 19 February 2024, the Claimant filed a case against the Defendant in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) seeking payment from the Defendant in the amount of AED 93,959.95, being the original claim amount before the Defendant transferred the AED 5,960, and, to date, the amount left according to the parties is AED 88,000.

8. The Court scheduled a Consultation before SCT Judge Maitha Al Shehhi on 6 March 2024, but the parties were unable to reach a settlement.

9. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 26 March 2024 with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance.

10. In support of its Claim, the Claimant presented the original invoices and explained the process by which each invoice is generated and how the equipment is delivered to the Defendant – including having the client sign on each invoice for confirmation. The Claimant also added that the invoices submitted to the Court were generated in January and February 2023 and have not been paid to date.

11. In reply, the Defendant submits that the equipment ordered from the Claimant did not meet the specifications ordered by their clients which led the Clients in postponing the payment due to the Defendant requiring further information from the Claimant about the equipment. The Defendant submitted an email from their client rejecting the equipment which reads as follows:

“Dear Nova,

As we discussed earlier , majority of the items delivered for Intercom system are rejected due to change in country origin and rejected MIR is attached . More over we need your team to be here for discussing about the ONU also. We need clarification for the comments immediately with out any delay.

Nyx QA/QC Engineer – MEP”


12. The Terms of Business shared by the Claimant states that the dispute is governed by the DIFC Law of Contract and the relevant case law and principles concerning a breach of contract. Clause 16 of the Terms of Business, states as follows:

“16. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution: we reserve the right to take legal action to recover any unpaid amount which has become due and owing for goods provided and/or work performed. These terms of business, and the entire relationship between the Parties, are all subject to and governed by the laws of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). In the event of a dispute arising out of, or in connection with, these terms of business or any work performed or goods supplied thereunder, the parties agree, by executing these terms that such claims will be brought before the DIFC Courts and all such disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the DIFC courts.”

13. The Court does acknowledge the email from the Defendant’s client that they are being rejected, but it also noted that there is no evidence to support that this issue was raised to the Claimant or that the equipment was returned to the Claimant.

14. The Defendant has failed to present any evidence to the Court to suggest that the Defendant has opposed the equipment being delivered nor did it seek to return the equipment to the Claimant.

15. As such, the Court deems that the goods were received and delivered to the Defendant in a satisfactory condition. Pursuant to Clause 14 of the Terms of Business, as stated:

“14. Return of Goods: In no circumstances may goods supplied against a firm order be returned without our prior written consent and the receipt of your advice note stating the reason for the return and the date and number of our invoice. All goods returned must be securely packed and, unless we arrange collection, consigned carriage paid. If we collect we reserve the right to make a handling charge, and the issue of our collection note will not bind us to issue any credit in respect of the goods.”

16. As the invoices are under the Defendant’s name, I find that it is liable to pay all the invoices signed and received, regardless of whether the equipment was rejected by the Defendant’s Client.

17. This is a very straightforward matter; the Claimant delivered the electrical equipment to the site and each invoice had been signed by an employee of the Defendant, and the Defendant failed to present any evidence to support their rejection of the equipment to the Claimant. Therefore, I find no reason for the Claimant not to be awarded the amounts to which it is owed.


18. As such it is hereby ordered that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 88,000 for the pending invoices. The Defendant shall also pay the Claimant the DIFC Court filing fee in the amount of AED 4,701.21.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII