BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Nashwa v Nashtar [2024] DIFC SCT 307 (11 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_307.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 307 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Nashwa v Nashtar [2024] DIFC SCT 307
September 11, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 307/2024
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of DubaiIN THE SMALL CLAIMS LEASING TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BETWEEN
NASHWA
Claimant
and
NASHTAR
Defendant
Hearing : 4 September 2024 Judgment : 11 September 2024 JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON this Claim having been called for a hearing with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Claim” and the “Hearing”)
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT:
1. The new lease agreement is valid from 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025.
2. The revocation of the valid new lease agreement is null and void.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the cost of this claim in the sum of AED 367.50.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 11 September 2024
At: 3pmTHE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Nashwa (the “Claimant”), an individual who signed a lease agreement with the Defendant for Unit in DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).
2. The Defendant is Nashtar (the “Defendant”), the new owner of the Unit.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over a lease agreement dated 30 June 2021 with a tenancy period commencing on 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2024 (the “Agreement”).
4. On 26 July 2024, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking a court order to declare the Defendant’s revocation of the validly accepted offer is null and void, to declare that the new lease agreement commencing on 1 August 2024 is valid and to direct the Defendant to pay the costs of the claim.
5. On 1 August 2024, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service with the intention to defend the claim.
6. A consultation was held before SCT Judge Maitha Al Shehhi on 20 August 2024, however the parties failed to reach an amicable solution.
7. In line with the processes and procedures of the SCT this matter was referred to me for determination pursuant to a hearing that was scheduled before me on 4 September 2024 (the “Hearing”).
The Claim
8. The Claimant submits that the Agreement was signed between the Claimant and the previous landlord; Nasreen. On 30 April 2024, the Claimant was orally informed that the ownership of the unit has changed from Nasreen to the Defendant.
9. The Claimant submits that they were also informed that during the tenancy period, Naoyuki is the representative of the Defendant.
10. The Claimant submits that on 14 June 2024 by way of an email requested from the Defendant to renew the Agreement.
11. On 20 June 2024, the Defendants via email forwarded a new lease agreement for the period of 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025 and informed the Claimant that the lease needs to be signed and confirmed by 28 June 2024.
12. On 27 June 2024, the Claimant sent the Defendant’s representative an email accepting the new Agreement.
13. On 11 July 2024, the Claimant followed up with the Defendant’s representative but received an email on 15 July 2024 from the Defendant’s representative that the Unit is no longer available.
14. The Claimant submits that Article 14 of the Contract Law, DIFC Law No. 6 of 2004 states that a contract is concluded upon acceptance of an offer. An offer is defined in Article 15 as a proposal that is sufficiently definite and indicates the intention of the offeror to be bound in case of acceptance. In the case herein, the Defendants sent an offer to the Claimant in the form of the New Lease Agreement, which the Claimant accepted and executed accordingly. By virtue of the law and the acts of the Defendants and the Claimant, the New Lease Agreement is considered a concluded contract.
15. The Claimant also submits that Additionally, Article 17(2) of the Contract Law reads:
“An offer cannot be revoked:
(a) if it indicates whether by stating a fixed time for acceptance or otherwise, that it is irrevocable; or
(b) if it was reasonable for the offeree to rely on the offer as being irrevocable and the offeree has acted in reliance on the offer.”
16. Therefore, the Claimant filed a claim seeking the following:
(a) To declare that the Defendant’s revocation of the validly accepted offer is null and void.
(b) To declare that the New Lease Agreement commencing on 1 August 2024 was validly concluded and that the Claimant has the right to remain in possession of the Premises as a lessee till the expiry of the New Lease Agreement as on 31 July 2025.
(c) To direct the Defendant to pay all the cost including the court fee, attorney fee and other expenses.
The Defence
17. The Defendant submits that the Claimant did not submit a properly executed new Lease Agreement within the specified timeframe or in the manner required under the terms of the existing Lease Agreement. Clause 20.1 of the draft Lease Agreement specifies that any notices required to be given pursuant to the provisions of this Lease must be delivered through email, hand-delivered, or sent by courier with receipt acknowledged, to the address identified in the Particulars. An email sent to the property manager does not fulfil this contractual requirement. According to the draft lease agreement, formal notices must be sent to the Defendant at the following email addresses: info@nashtar.com orbusiness@najida.com.
18. The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s failure to adhere to the requirement specified in Clause 20.1 invalidates their purported acceptance. Therefore, no new lease agreement was properly executed and accepted by the Defendant within the specified period. Sending a scanned copy of a cheque on 19 July 2024 indicates the Claimant's intent but does not substitute for a formally executed contract.
19. The Defendant adds that Defendant had the right to revoke the offer before any binding agreement was formed. The reminder of revocation on 15 July 2024 was legally valid and communicated within a reasonable timeframe, as provided under DIFC law.
20. Therefore, the Defendant requests the following:
(a) Dismiss the Claimant’s claim, as there is no valid or binding new lease agreement in place.
(b) Recognise that the Claimant has not substantiated any claims of irreparable damage or legal violations.
(c) Provide appropriate relief to the Defendant, including the recovery of costs incurred in defending against this unfounded claim.
(d) Order the Claimant to leave the premises immediately as their lease has ended, to prevent further losses to the Defendant and to pay rent pro-rated up to the date of leaving.
Findings
21. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Agreement along with the DIFC Leasing Law No. 1 of 2020 (the “DIFC Leasing Law”).
22. Upon reviewing the evidence provided, the Claimant on 14 June 2024 contacted the Defendant’s agent who by way of email dated 20 June 2024, sent the Claimant the new lease agreement and reads as follows:
“[A]ttached is the agreement for the new lease.
We will need the signed agreement returned by 28 June 2024.”
23. The Claimant, on 27 June 2024, signed the new lease agreement and sent it to the Defendant’s agent as instructed in the email dated 20 June 2024. Therefore, the Claimant have received an offer and have accepted the offer by signing the new lease agreement and sending it back to the Defendant’s agent as instructed.
24. The Defendant’s argument that the Claimant failed to comply with Clause 20.1 and 20.2 of the new lease agreement is unsubstantiated. Clause 20 of the Agreement relates to serving notices post the contractual relationship between the parties and not the form to accept this new lease agreement.
25. Article 14 of the DIFC Contract Law provides that “a Contract is concluded by the acceptance of an offer.”
26. Article 17 of the DIFC Contract Law provides that:
“An offer cannot be revoked:
(a) if it indicates whether by stating a fixed time for acceptance or otherwise, that it is irrevocable; or
(b) if it was reasonable for the offeree to rely on the offer as being irrevocable and the offeree has acted in reliance on the offer.”
27. I find that an offer cannot be revoked as the Defendant’s agent clearly stated in their email that a response must be received by 28 June 2024 and the Claimant have shared its acceptance on 27 June 2024.
28. Therefore, the Courts declare that the new lease agreement is valid from 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025 and declare that the revocation of the valid new lease agreement is null and void, and that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the cost of this claim in the sum of AED 367.50.
