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 >> Niphini v (1) Nareb (2) Nukhad [2024] DIFC SCT 411 (03 January 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_411.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 411 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Niphini v (1) Nareb (2) Nukhad [2023] SCT 411
January 03, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 411/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
NIPHINI
Claimant
and
(1) NAREB
(2) NUKHADDefendants
ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE DELVIN SUMO
UPON this claim having been called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 3 January 2024
AND PURSUANT TOthe Rule 4.12 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Second Defendant shall be removed from this Claim.
2. The SCT Registry shall issue an amended Claim Form accordingly.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 3 January 2024
At: 11amSCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This Claim relates to a dispute between the Claimant and Nareb. The Claim Form dated 17 October 2023 in this matter appears to name the Second Defendant in this Claim to be ‘Nukhad’. In review of the Claim Form and the documents filed in support of it, it appears that the Claimant, upon the filing of the Claim Form, erroneously included the manager of the company as the Second Defendant to this Claim.
2. The error 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 an incorrectly identified Defendant and recommend that the parties be correctly identified moving forward. I have determined that this order be made of my own initiative, to save time and avoid any delays in progressing the matter.
3. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Second Defendant be removed from this Claim.
