Skip to Content

Femke Company v (1) Feliks Corporation (2) Feliks Middle East [2015] DIFC SCT 017

Femke Company v (1) Feliks Corporation (2) Feliks Middle East [2015] DIFC SCT 017

August 24, 2015


Claim No: SCT 017/2015


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










Hearing: 01 July 2015

Judgment: 24 August 2015


UPON hearing the Claimant and the Second Defendant.

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file


The Claimant’s Claim is rejected.

The reasons:

1.The Claimant requested the Defendants to pay the Consultation charges due at the end of the Consulting Service Agreement. The Defendants had refused to pay, which had led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.

2. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 01 July 2015 I heard the Claimant’s and the Second Defendant’s submissions.

3. In the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that his Company Client Femke entered into a Consulting Service Agreement dated 17 September 2011 with Feliks Corporation (First Defendant) which was duly signed by the Executive Chairman of Feliks Middle East (the Second Defendant) and at that time was the Executive Chairman of Feliks Corporation (the First Defendant). In the said agreement, both parties agreed that the (First Defendant) would make payment in the amount of USD 50,000 to the Claimant’s Client for work performed in accordance with the Consulting Agreement, as agreed in the amount of USD 25,000 would be given in cash and the remaining amount of USD 25,000 in preferred shares nominated by the First Defendant to the Claimant.

4. The Claimant argued further that it had successfully completed the job and delivered the “required materials” in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement, and the first half of the agreed amount had been paid by the Second Defendant by cheque. However, the First Defendant had failed to nominate preferred shares to the Claimant, and had rather directed the Claimant to go to Canada and settle its accounts with the First Defendant.

5. In its defence, the Second Defendant argued that it was not a party to the Consulting Service agreement that was signed by Frangag Consultant Inc., a UK registered entity, and Feliks Corporation, a Canadian registered entity against which the original claim is based. The Second Defendant further argued that the Claimant in these proceedings is Frangag Consultancy Company , a UAE registered entity with TecomAuthority, the CEOFinch, while the alleged signed agreement is with Frangag Consultancy Inc, a Company registered in the UK, the CEObeingFranny, which shows that the two entities are different .

6. In addition to that the Second Defendant argued that the alleged agreement was signed by Feroze instead of Filippa and was emailed to Mr.Finch on 08 July 2014 for the counter signature of Mr. Franny, but the agreement was never countersigned by Filippa on behalf of the First Defendant. Therefore, the Second Defendant never had made any payment from its DIFC nor from its Dubai Branch to the Femke Team Consultancy Inc.( the UK entity ) or Femke Consultancy Company (the UAE entity )

7. I have examined all submissions filed in this case, including email correspondence and I have found that the Claimant has built its Claim on the alleged Consulting Service Agreement in its Particulars of Claim, but has failed to establish first its contractual or legal relationship with the parties of such agreement mainly its relationship with the Consultant in the agreement, the Femke Consultancy Inc. A different entity shall have a separate legal Identity and may sue and be sued in such capacity.

8. Moreover, I have noticed that the Claimant has not provided any evidence of payment made by the Second Defendant to Femke Consultancy Company (the Claimant Company) related to the alleged Consulting Service Agreement.

9. Furthermore, I have examined all correspondence and submitted documents, including the draft business plan, investment proposal and supporting evidence filed in this case, which suggested that the Claimant company and Mr. Finch may have done some work for the Defendants , but I cannot rely on these submissions alone to find the Defendants legally responsible to pay the Claimant for that work on the basis of the alleged agreement that the Claimant is not party to, as I am of the view that the evidence submitted by the Claimant is neither sufficient nor reasonable to establish such a contractual or legal responsibility .

10. For the reasons above-cited, I have rejected all the Claimants’ claims.

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser

Judicial Officer

Date: 24 August 2015

At: 4pm


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.