Skip to Content

Harvey General Trading LLC v Huxley Entertainment LLC [2017] DIFC SCT 286

Harvey General Trading LLC v Huxley Entertainment LLC [2017] DIFC SCT 286

November 23, 2017

image_pdfimage_print

 Claim No. SCT 286/2017

 

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 MARIAM DEEN

BETWEEN

 

HARVEY GENERAL TRADING LLC

Claimant

and

 

HUXLEY ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Defendant

 


Hearing:   13 November 2017

Judgment:  14 November 2017


 JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE MARIAM DEEN


 

UPON the Claim Form being filed on 15 October 2017;

UPON the Defendant indicating its intention to contest jurisdiction and defend all of the Claim on 16 October 2017;

UPON the Jurisdiction Hearing of 2 November being rescheduled due to the Claimant’s failure to attend;

UPON a Jurisdiction Hearing being held before SCT Judge Mariam Deen on 13 November 2017, with the Claimant’s representative and the Defendant’s representative in attendance;

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Defendant’s application to contest jurisdiction is denied.
  2. The DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.
  3. Each party shall bear their own costs.

 

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser

SCT Judge and Registrar

Date of Issue: 14 November 2017

At: 11am

 

THE REASONS

Parties

  1. The Claimant is Harvey General Trading LLC, a food import and trading company, registered and with a commercial license in Dubai, represented by Hoyt (the Claimant”).
  2. The Defendant is Huxley Entertainment LLC, a DIFC registered company with offices located at Unit 234,  & Unit 456, , , Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Represented by Hiro (the “Defendant”).

Background

  1. Essentially, the Claimant’s case is that it is owed $5,445.00 by the Defendant in unpaid invoices related to the supply of various food items to Huxley Restaurant LLC. The Claimant seeks payment of the total invoiced amount from the Defendant who it claims is responsible for Huxley Restaurant LLC’s liabilities, as the companies are linked with a common owner.
  2. The Defendant denies that it is liable to pay the alleged unpaid invoices as it is not a party to any agreement entered into between the Claimant and Huxley Restaurant LLC.

Finding

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

  1. The Claim is being brought against the Defendant, a DIFC registered and licensed entity, therefore I find that there is sufficient nexus between the Claim and the DIFC Courts pursuant to Article 5(A)(a) of the Judicial Authority Law.
  2. The Claim Form states that the total value of the Claim is $5,445.00 (AED 20,000) which is within the AED 500,000 limit of the SCT. Accordingly, there is jurisdiction for the SCT to hear the dispute.
  3. At the Hearing, the Defendant stated that even if there was legitimacy to the Claim, the Defendant had been identified incorrectly, as it was Huxley Restaurant LLC that entered into an agreement with the Claimant, not Huxley Entertainment LLC.
  4. I reminded the parties that the purpose of the Jurisdiction Hearing was to determine whether or not the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction to hear and determine the Claim and that the merits of the case would not be considered in this Judgment. Whether or not the Claim should succeed or has been brought against the correct Defendant are matters to be determined moving forward; at this stage however, it is sufficient that the Claim is brought against Huxley Entertainment LLC, a DIFC registered entity, and that the Defendant’s representative confirmed he appeared on its behalf. Therefore, I am satisfied that the DIFC Courts do have jurisdiction to deal with the Claim.
  5. The Defendant’s application to contest jurisdiction is denied and the merits of the case shall be considered.
  6. The parties shall each bear their own costs.

 

 

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser

SCT Judge and Registrar

Date of Issue: 14 November 2017

At: 11am

X

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.