Nell v Nero [2023] DIFC SCT 397

January 16, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 397/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

BETWEEN

NELL

Claimant

and

NERO

Defendant

---

Hearing :	15 December 2023
Judgment :	16 January 2024

---

JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

---

UPON the claim having been filed on 10 October 2023

AND UPON the Defendant failing to file a defence

AND UPON a hearing having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 14 December 2023, with the Claimant’s representative in attendance and the Defendant failing to appear

AND UPON a second hearing having been listed before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 15 December 2023, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON the Registry’s email dated 15 December 2023 setting out the directions made following the Hearing

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 291,960.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the amount of AED 14,598.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 16 January 2024
At: 12pm

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Nell (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE.

2. The Defendant is Nero (the “Defendant”), a company registered in the DIFC, Dubai, UAE.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The Claimant is seeking payment in relation to pending invoices in the amount of AED 291,960.05.

4. The Claimant supplied food to the Defendant from 1 July 2022 until 1 November 2022 however the Defendant fell into arrears in relation to payment for the supplies.

5. The Claimant submits that they followed up with the Defendant to no avail.

6. The Defendant admitted at the Hearing that the amount is due and payable and asked the Claimant to honour its request for a 3-week extension in order to arrange its finances to settle the outstanding sum.

7. Following this, I requested the Defendant to provide the Claimant and the Court with a weekly update on the status of the settlement and made it clear than in the event it failed to provide the required update, a judgment could be issued against it.

8. The Defendant provided an update on 22 and 29 December 2023 but it failed to provide an update on 5 January 2024. The SCT Registry attempted to communicate with the Defendant seeking an update on 9 January 2024 however it has failed to respond to date.

Discussion

9. The jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts is determined by Article 5(A) of the Judicial Authority Law, Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended, (the “JAL”) which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over a claim, namely:

“(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