[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Nelson v Nicolyne [2024] DIFC SCT 111 (05 August 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_1111.html

[New search] [Help]

Nelson v Nicolyne [2024] DIFC SCT 111

August 05, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 111/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

NELSON

Claimant/Applicant

and

NICOLYNE

Defendant/Respondent

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK KC

---

UPON reviewing the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri (the “Judge”) dated 15 July 2024 (the “Judgment”)

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 25 July 2024 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Application”)

AND UPON considering the documents and submissions filed by both parties and recorded on the case file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is refused.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 5 August 2024
At: 2pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant, Nelson (“Nelson”), seeks permission to appeal the judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri given on 15 July 2024 dismissing Nelson’s claim against the Defendant (“Ms Nicolyne”) for the sum of AED 15,000 in respect of services rendered by Nelson in the management of an apartment owned by Ms Nicolyne .

2. Nelson’s Appeal Notice dated 25 July 2024 relies upon a single ground of appeal, namely that the decision was wrong. The respects in which it is alleged the decision was wrong are not stated. Under RDC 53.87, the Court will allow an appeal where the decision was wrong and by RDC 53.90(1) permission to appeal may be given only where the Court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success, that is to say, a more than fanciful prospect of success.

3. The case is, as the Judge said in her judgment “very straightforward”, and the facts were set out by her. Nelson and Ms Nicolyne agreed that if Nelson could negotiate a new lease with the tenant of her apartment with an annual rent in the region of AED 230,000 Ms Nicolyne would pay Nelson the sum of AED 15,000.

4. Ms Nicolyne contended before the Judge, and the Judge accepted, that without consulting Ms Nicolyne, Nelson agreed a new rent of AED 200,000 which was below the figures discussed and was not authorised by Ms Nicolyne. Consequently, the Judge held that Nelson acted contrary to the agreement and was therefore not entitled to its fee. It is as simple as that.

5. The finding was open to the Judge on the evidence before her and there is in my view no prospect whatsoever that it would be overturned on appeal. Permission to appeal is therefore refused.