Skip to Content

Calandra v Calder [2012] DIFC SCT 004

Calandra v Calder [2012] DIFC SCT 004

March 1, 2012



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








Parties: Calandra, Claimant in person

Calder, Defendant


1. A hearing took place in respect of the application contesting jurisdiction filed by the Defendant on 23 January 2012 further to the claim filed on 15 January 2012.

2. I have had the benefit of listening to both Calder and Calandra in relation to the jurisdiction objection set out in the application. Calandra has pursued a strict legal interpretation of the matter of jurisdiction. He argues that the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has no jurisdiction in relation to these complaints because the matters which are alleged to have taken place were either not in bad faith or, if they are found to have been in bad faith, would fall within the remit of Part 42 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) which provides for the review of the lawfulness of a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.

3. Calandra referred to legislation which he contended indicated that the Registrar of Companies exercised his jurisdiction as a public function (namely Articles 7(1), 8 and 139 of DIFC Law No.2 of 2009 (“the Companies Law”) and I am persuaded that is the case. In the alternative, Calandra pointed to legislation which provides that the Registrar of Companies is not liable for any act or omission save where it has been undertaken in bad faith, and he asserted that no such bad faith had taken place. He referred in the context of that argument to Article 152 of the Companies Law. It is also worth considering r53.5 of the RDC which provides for the parts of the rules of the court that should apply to the Small Claims Tribunal “except to the extent that a Rule limits such application or the SCT Judge orders otherwise”. In particular, that part does not apply to claims for judicial review.

4. Calandra, on the other hand, argues well, if I may say so, that the Small Claims Tribunal should look beyond the letter of the law and seek to provide a broader form of justice and, in his words, interpret the ‘spirit of the law’. He has identified three areas in which he alleges the Registrar of Companies acted improperly. He has also intimated that he does wish to pursue an action that, not only did the Registrar of Companies act improperly, but in bad faith. Those three areas relate to effecting changes as a result of an allegedly invalid shareholders’ resolution; improperly handling the documentation of xxxx Consulting Group insofar as he did not have the documents that he ought to have had for incorporation; and improperly amending an Encumbrance Certificate.

5. It is clear that there is a dispute between Calandra and his fellow shareholder, DIFC Investments. It is clear that the dispute is longstanding and it is clear that Calandra wishes to pursue it in other jurisdictions, although he reserves his right to pursue it in this jurisdiction as well. That is not a matter that concerns us today. Whilst I have great sympathy for Calandra position, he is not represented and he does not have a legal qualification. At the same time, as a court, we must abide by the framework of the laws put in place in the DIFC. Equally, we must abide by the rules of the DIFC Courts. I find that the nature of the claims brought by Calandra do fall within those referred to in r42.2 of the RDC – that is a claim to review the lawfulness of a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function, that being the function of the Registrar of Companies. Having found that the nature of the claim is one for judicial review, I am bound to determine that it is not a matter that the Small Claims Tribunal can hear pursuant to r53.5 and other legislation referred to in the pleadings. This is not to preclude Calandra in any way from pursuing an action before this court for judicial review of the matters raised, nor is it to prevent Calandra from pursuing any claim that he deems appropriate against his shareholder, DIFC Investments, in this court or elsewhere. This decision is limited only to the question of whether the Small Claims Tribunal has the power, as a matter of law, and in accordance with the applicable rules to determine claims involving judicial review.

6. Permission to appeal is refused.

Mark Beer
Date of Issue: March 2012


Privacy Policy

The Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DIFC Courts's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DIFC Courts in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DIFC Courts is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DIFC Courts’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.


The content of the DIFC Courts website is provided for information purposes only and should be disregarded when making decisions on inheritance and any other matters. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, the DIFC Courts makes no warranties or representations to you as to the accuracy, authenticity or completeness of the content on this website, which is subject to change at any time without notice. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by the DIFC Courts or any person employed or connected with it or formerly so employed or connected, to any person on any matter, be it in relation to inheritance, succession planning or otherwise. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer in relation to your personal circumstances and your objectives. The DIFC Courts does not assume any liability and shall not be liable to you for any damages, including but not limited to, direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website, its administration and any content or lack thereof found on it. The information on this web site is not to be displayed except in full screen format. Although care has been taken to provide links to suitable material from this site, no guarantee can be given about the suitability, completeness or accuracy of any of the material that this site may be linked to or other material on the internet. The DIFC Courts cannot accept any responsibility for the content of material that may be encountered therein.