November 08, 2021 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 312/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
ORDER OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 14 October 2021 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 8 November 2020
AND UPON reviewing all relevant material in the case file
AND UPON reviewing Rule 44.19 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s Appeal Notice be granted due its success to meet the requirements of RDC 44.19.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Nassir Al Nasser
Date of issue: 8 November 2021
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Claimant in this Claim, against the judgment issued on 8 November 2020 (the “Judgment”). The Appeal Notice dated 14 October 2021 sets out the Claimant’s request to determine the permission to appeal against the judgment on paper.
2. The background of this Claim is relevantly set out in the judgment and need not be repeated in the course of this decision.
3. In accordance with RDC 44.19, permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Appeal notice filed by the Claimant, I find that the Appeal does meet the requirements under ARDC 44.19. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. In the Appeal Notice, the Claimant states the grounds for appeal to be as follows:
“the Agreement between the parties were service Contracts for providing warehousing services (the movement of goods, storage and tracking of inventory in a warehouse where the possession, control and occupation of the warehouse are with the Claimant) and logistic services (involving inbound and outbound transportation, fleet management, materials handling). There is no Ejari Registration as the Contract in question is not an agreement between a landlord and a tenant or a lessor and a lessee”.
6. The above statement can be construed to be a position from which the Claimant can argue that there has been error on the part in reaching the conclusion set out in the judgment.
7. Therefore, in light of the Claimant’s submission, I am of the view that there has been error in law or in fact in reaching the conclusion set out in the judgment, and thus the Appeal does have a prospect of success.
8. I also do find that is a compelling reason for the Appeal to be heard, and therefore the Appeal satisfy the requirements of RDC 44.19.
9. Each party shall bear their own costs.
For better web experience, please use the website in portrait mode