Mab Consult Fzc v Mabel Contracting Co Llc [2020] DIFC SCT 395

January 14, 2021 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No. SCT 395/2020

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN

MAB CONSULT FZC

Claimant

and

MABEL CONTRACTING CO LLC

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE HAYLEY NORTON

---

UPON this Claim having been called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 5 and 10 January 2021

AND UPON reviewing the case file for Claim SCT-336-2017

AND UPON reviewing the case file and submissions for this Claim

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This Claim be dismissed.

2. The Claimant is at liberty to apply for permission of the Court to set aside the Default Order and reinstate the 2017 Claim.

3. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 14 January 2021
At: 2pm

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Mab Consult FZC, a company registered in the Ras Al Khaimah Economic Zone, UAE (the “Claimant”).

2. The Defendant is Mabel Contracting Co LLC, a company registered in Dubai, UAE (the “Defendant”).

Background

3. On 11 November 2020, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking sums allegedly owed to the Claimant by the Defendant in relation to a Professional Services Proposal entered into by the parties dated 18 July 2017 (the “Professional Services Proposal”). The Claimant is seeking payment in the amount of AED 436,900, which comprises the principal sum of AED 218,450, in addition to interest on the principal sum in the amount of AED 218,450.

4. The Defendant responded to this Claim on 29 November 2020 seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts. On 22 December 2020, a jurisdiction hearing was held before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo, pursuant to which it was determined that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

5. On 29 and 30 December 2020, and 4 January 2021, the Defendant filed its submissions in defence of this Claim, and thereafter, a Consultation was listed before me on 5 and 10 January 2021 at which only the Claimant appeared, although the Defendant was served notice of the listings.

Discussion

6. Upon review of the Claimant’s submissions filed in support of its claim, it appears that the Claimant has sought to bring this Claim as fresh proceedings for a matter that has previously been adjudicated upon, and for which this Court has already rendered its final judgment. I shall set out my reasons for making this finding below.

7. On 28 November 2017, Mr. Mustak (the Manager of the Claimant), initiated proceedings with the DIFC Courts’ SCT under Claim No. SCT-336-2017, seeking payment allegedly owed by Mr. Mindi (a representative of the Defendant) in the amount of AED 218,450, along with payment of interest at a monthly rate of 12% (the “2017 Claim”).

8. The 2017 Claim was served upon the Defendant by Mr. Mustak, and the matter was listed for a Consultation before SCT Judge Ayesha Bin Kalban on 28 December 2017. Following the Defendant’s failure to appear at the Consultation, the Judge proceeded to issue an Order in the Claimant’s favour (the “Default Order”), ordering as follows:

“1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 218,450.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant interest in the amount of AED 114,929.10 which will continue to accrue on a monthly basis at a rate of 12%.

3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts Filing Fee in the amount of AED 10,992.50.