Skip to Content

Ideta Equipment Rental LLC v Ivka Contracting Co LLC [2018] DIFC SCT 289

Ideta Equipment Rental LLC v Ivka Contracting Co LLC [2018] DIFC SCT 289

October 14, 2018


Claim No. SCT 289/2018


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

Ruler of Dubai









Hearing: 24 September 2018

Further Submissions: 4 October 2018

Judgment: 14 October 2018


UPON the Claim Form being filed on 2 September 2018;

UPON the Defendant contesting jurisdiction on 12 September 2018;

AND UPON a Jurisdiction Hearing having been held before SCT Judge Maha Al Mehairi on 24 September 2018, with the Claimant’s and Defendant’s representatives present;

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Issued by:

Maha Al Mehairi

SCT Judge

Date of issue: 14 October 2018

At: 9am





1. The Claimant is Ideta Equipment Rental LLC, a rental company that offers rental solutions for quality products and services.

2. The Defendant is Ivka Contracting Co. LLC, a construction management firm.

The Claim

3. The Claim arises out of a series of unpaid rental invoices between the parties. On 31 May 2017, the Claimant and Defendant engaged in serval transactions involving the rental of machines from the Claimant. The rental transaction enters a process which involves the client putting forward an inquiry about the rental of equipment, after which the Claimant provides a quotation. Thereafter, if the order is confirmed, as per general practice, the client provides the Claimant with a written and signed limited purchase order prior to the delivery of the machine. Once the equipment is delivered to the site, the client signs the Rental Agreement, which also serves as the Delivery Order.

4. Once the client no longer requires the machine on hire from the Claimant, it is required to notify the Claimant that the machine is no longer needed. Following which, the Claimant sends a truck to collect the hired unit, and the client is required to sign the “Off-Hire Notice”, whereby the machine is released back to the Claimant. The notice must be signed by the client as well as the delivery driver.

5. Thereafter, the Claimant’s accounts department prepares an invoice for the Client based on the rental usage of the machine. If the machine is rented for more than 1 calendar month, multiple invoices will be generated, one month at a time, until the unit is off hired.

6. The Claimant and the Defendant engaged in this process with every rental transaction and, as such, the Claimant has written proof of every transaction that was invoiced to the Defendant. There are 32 invoices pending payment from 2017 in the total amount of AED 135,879.18.

7. On 2 September 2018, the Claimant filed a case against the Defendant in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) requesting that the Court order that, as per the Rental invoices, the Defendant be required to pay the pending invoices from 2017, the court fee, and the eligible interest as per the law over the claimed amount. The Claimant submitted all copies of the pending invoices from 2017.

8. In response to the Claim, the Defendant contested the Jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts in their acknowledgement of service dated on 12 September 2018. On 24 September 2018 I heard submissions from the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives at the hearing.

9. In the hearing, the Claimant presented the original invoices and explained the process by which each invoice is generated and how the equipment is delivered to the client – having the client sign on each process for confirmation. The Claimant also added that these invoices were generated from 2017 and have not been paid to date.

10. The Claimant also added that each invoice includes terms and conditions printed on the back of it, which specifies that in case of a dispute between the parties that DIFC Courts will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The Defendant’s Submissions

11. The Defendant submits that after the death of Mr. Ivrahim, the Dubai Courts formed a Special Court Committee by Resolution N. 21/2017, which was granted the exclusive jurisdiction over the late Ivrahim’s inheritance and the Heirs of Ivrahim’s related cases.

12. The Defendant also submitted a copy of the Decree that was issued to establish the Special Court Committee, and under the Courts and Judiciary Bodies Obligations, Article 3 of the Decree, states:

“A. All courts and judiciary bodies in the Emirate of Dubai, including courts of Dubai International Financial Center shall not consider any claim or case submitted upon execution of this resolution concerning matters covered by the competences of the committee. They shall cease to consider claims, cases, and appeals submitted thereto before execution of the present resolution and transfer such to the committee.

B. court rulings shall be suspended issued before execution of the provisions of such resolution in all courts in the Emirate of Dubai including courts of Dubai International Financial Center regarding all issues related to the competency of the committee. The execution departments shall suspend all these judgments and shall transfer such to the committee.

13. The Heirs of late Ivrahim are partners in Ivka Contracting Co LLC..

14. As such, all cases related to the late Mr. Ivrahim are directed to that Tribunal, therefore, the case at hand does not fall within the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction as per the five jurisdictional gateways set out in Article 5A (1) of the Law No. 16 of 2011.


15. Having considered the written submissions and the arguments put forward at the jurisdiction hearing, I find that this dispute falls outside the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

16. Rule 53.2 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) requires that the SCT only hear 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.”

17. There is no evidence that any of these gateways have the potential to apply in this case. Neither of the parties are DIFC Bodies or Establishments. The relevant contracts were not partly or wholly concluded or performed within the DIFC. In fact, there is no alleged connection to the DIFC. There is no other relevant DIFC Law or Regulation granting jurisdiction in this matter. Finally, all though the parties have agreed in writing to file such claim or action within the DIFC Courts, the Special Tribunal supersedes any agreement that was entered into between the parties.

18. Pursuant to Article 5(A)(2) of the Judicial Authority Law, it is possible for the parties to agree in writing to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts after this dispute arose, however, the parties failed to do this. The Defendant contested the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts and as such this is considered a rejection to an opt-in of the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction.

19. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant’s arguments are correct as none of the relevant jurisdictional gateways of the Judicial Authority Law apply to this case due to the Special Tribunal being established to deal with the matter, I must conclude that this case falls outside of the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.


20. This is a very straightforward matter, the DIFC Courts and the Small Claims Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to hear this Claim and therefore the Claim must be dismissed in full for lack of jurisdiction.

21. Each party shall bear their own costs.


Issued by:

Maha Al Mehairi

SCT Judge

Date of issue: 14 October 2018

At: 9am



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.