[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Netta v Novia [2024] DIFC SCT 227 (16 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_2276.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 227

[New search] [Help]

Netta v Novia [2024] DIFC SCT 227

July 16, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 227/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

NETTA

Claimant

and

NOVIA

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

---

UPON the claim having been filed on 4 June 2024 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service form setting out its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts dated 11 June 2024 (the “Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s reply dated 24 June 2024 (the “Claimant’s Reply”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s response to the Claimant’s Reply dated 10 July 2024

AND UPON a Jurisdiction Hearing having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 15 July, with the Claimant’s representative and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Hearing”)

AND PURSUANT TORule 4.12 and Part 53 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant’s name is to be amended to reflect “Netta ” and the Defendant’s name is to be amended to reflect “Novia ”.

2. The Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge is dismissed.

3. The DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

4. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 16 July 2024
At: 12pm

THE REASONS

1. The Claimant, (Navid), filed a claim in her personal capacity against the new owner of “Netta” in his personal capacity on 4 June 2024, being Mr Nollan.

2. The Claimant, who is the owner of Netta, submits that she entered into an official agreement with Novia on 14 February 2024 (the “Agreement”) with the old management who she had a long-standing relationship with for years.

3. The Claimant asserts that she was informed on 25 February 2024 that there is a new management who took over and all debts were transferred to them.

4. The Claimant further submits that she only knew Mr Nollan’s first name and email address and tried to contact him to settle the pending matters to no avail.

5. The Claimant confirmed at the Hearing that the Claim was meant to be filed against the company and it was an error from her end to file it against Mr Nollan in his personal capacity.

6. Therefore, the Claimant is seeking overdue invoices from the Defendant company in the amount of AED 12,474 plus 3% legal interest in accordance with the Agreement.

7. Mr Nollan submits that there is no agreement entered between himself and Ms Navid and therefore the Claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He adds that in the event, the Claimant would like to pursue a claim against the company then a new claim should be lodged against it.

8. Mr Nollan further submits that the Agreement itself is forged as neither the stamp nor the signature appears to be authenticated by them and he did not sign the Agreement himself.

9. This Claim relates to a dispute between Netta and Novia. The Claim Form dated 4 June 2024 in this matter appears to name the Claimant in this Claim to be ‘Navid” and the Defendant to be “Nollan”. In review of the Claim Form and the documents filed in support of it, it appears that the Claimant, upon filing the Claim Form, has incorrectly named the Claimant to be herself in her personal capacity and incorrectly named the new owner of the company to be the Defendant (Mr Nollan).

10. The oversight made by the Claimant within the Claim Form is a common one and can be attributed to the nature of the Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) insofar as litigants are self-represented, with legal representation being permitted on a conditional basis only subject to authorisation being granted by a judge of the SCT. The SCT’s practice in these circumstances is for the judge presiding over the consultation or hearing to discover an error of incorrectly named litigants or parties and recommend that the parties be correctly spelled going forward. I have determined that this order be made of my own initiative, to save time and avoid any delay in issuing the Order.

11. As the Claimant is aware that this Claim pertains to payment of overdue invoices which is allegedly owed to her by virtue of the Agreement and proceeded to name herself to be the Claimant rather than the company demonstrates that the act was not intentional to name Mr Nollan to be the Defendant, rather it shows that it was a genuine mistake from her end for not being familiar with court procedures as she does not have any legal background.

12. Although Mr Nollan is correct to assume that the Claim is filed incorrectly against him in his personal capacity, this does not mean that the Claim should be dismissed, and the Claimant ought to file and pay for a new claim. In the interest of justice and pursuant to the overriding objective, I am of the view that the parties’ names in the Claim shall be changed as opposed to dismissing the Claim in its entirety.

13. Accordingly, I hereby order that the Claimant’s name must be amended to reflect the company’s name as per the Agreement and the Defendant’s name must be amended to reflect the company’s name as per the Agreement.

14. Further to the above, the Claimant’s name is to be amended to reflect “Netta” and the Defendant’s name is to be amended to reflect “Novia ”.

Can the DIFC Courts hear and determine this Claim?

15. I do not propose on making a final determination on the Claim as the purpose of the jurisdiction hearing is to determine whether the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear the Claim, meaning whether it falls within the jurisdictional gateways of the DIFC.

16. That being said, I will not be looking at the merits of the case or delivering a final judgment on this case, this includes the validity of the Agreement.

17. At the Hearing, the Defendant’s representative (Mr Nollan) confirmed that the DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter on the basis that there is no agreement between himself and Ms Navid in their personal capacities.

18. Mr Nollan added that he disputes the Agreement itself and submits that the Claimant failed to attach any evidence of delivery notes or receipt of goods.

19. The Claimant admits that she was incorrect to name Mr Nollan as the Defendant in this Claim and it ought to have been filed against the company mentioned in the Agreement, which is now owned by Mr Nollan .

20. The Claimant adds that she did not have the new trade license nor Mr Nollan’s emirates identification as the old management only conveyed Mr Nollan’s name and email address to the Claimant.

21. Mr Nollan relies on clause 10.8 of the Agreement which stipulates that“Neither party shall assign or otherwise transfer any of its benefits of obligations under this Agreement to any third party without the prior written consent of the other Party”.

22. RDC 53.2 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 JAL, which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:

“(1) The Court of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine:

(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) The Court of First Instance may hear and determine any 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.”

23. For cases to be heard in the SCT, first, they must first fall within the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction by engaging any of the jurisdictional gateways set out in the abovementioned Article.

24. The Claimant relies on clause 11.3 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

“The Parties Agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal in case of any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the formation, performance, interpretation, nullification, termination or invalidation of this Agreement.”

25. Further to the above, I find that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine the Claim in accordance with Article 5(A)(1)(2) of the JAL on the basis that Clause 11.3 of the Agreement is clear on the parties’ intention to resort to the DIFC Courts in case of any dispute and is the appropriate forum to hear the Claim.

26. It follows that the Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge is rejected.

27. The Defendant (Novia) has the right to file its defence to the Claim within 7 days of the date of this Order.

28. The SCT Registry shall list a consultation session in due course.

29. Each party shall bear its own costs.