Skip to Content

Haneul Ltd v Hanelle Industry Fzco [2017] DIFC SCT 193

Haneul Ltd v Hanelle Industry Fzco [2017] DIFC SCT 193

August 23, 2017


Claim No. SCT 193/2017 


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









Hearing: 16 August 2017

Judgment: 23 August 2017


Transcribed from the oral judgment delivered on 16 August, revised and approved by the Judge.

UPON the Claim Form being filed on 27 July 2017

AND UPON the Defendant indicating its intention to contest jurisdiction on 30 July 2017

AND UPON a Jurisdiction Hearing having been held before SCT Judge Mariam Deen on 16 August 2017, with the Claimant and Defendant’s representative being in attendance

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence submitted in the Court file


1.The Defendants’ application to contest jurisdiction is granted.

2. The DIFC Courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim and the claim is therefore dismissed.

3. Each party shall bear their own costs.


1.The Claimant’s case is that he had agreed to provide a service to the Defendant in May 2009 and had been providing that service between October 2009 and October 2015. It is alleged that the Defendant has only made partial payments for the service received by it and has failed to settle his account with the Claimant, with AED 90,276.03 remaining outstanding.

2. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) requires that the Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) hear only cases that fall “within the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.”

3. 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, which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:

“(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 is supposed to be performed within DIFC pursuant to express or implied terms stipulated in the contract;

(c)  Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to any incident or transaction which has been wholly or partly performed within DIFC and is related to DIFC activities;

(e)  Any claim or action over which the Courts have jurisdiction in accordance with DIFC Laws and DIFC Regulations…

(2)  …civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with [the DIFC Courts] whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”

4. Neither party is, or was, a DIFC registered or licensed entity.

5. The parties acknowledge that their transactions were not partly or wholly performed within the DIFC, nor did they relate to DIFC activities.

6. In the absence of sufficient nexus between the Claim and the DIFC, the DIFC Courts may still have jurisdiction over the Claim if it can be shown that the parties sought to ‘opt in’ to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts, pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law. However, during the course of the Hearing it was accepted by both parties that there was never any agreement to ‘opt in’ to DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction, in fact, there was no written agreement between the parties at all.

7. For cases to be heard in the SCT they must fall within the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction, as addressed above, and the case must also be appropriate for the SCT. As there is no DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction, it follows that there cannot be jurisdiction for the SCT to hear the dispute.

8. Therefore, the Defendants’ application to contest jurisdiction is granted and the merits of the case shall not be considered.

9. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:

Lema Hatim

SCT Judge

Date of Issue: 23 August 2017

At: 12pm


Privacy Policy

The Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DRA'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 DRA in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DRA and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DRA is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DRA and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DRA and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DRA 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. DRA’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.