Claim No. SCT 100/2014
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE OMAR AL MUHAIRI
Hearing: 9 April 2015
Judgment: 30 April 2015
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE OMAR AL MUHAIRI
1. The Claimant is Feriha (“the Claimant”), an entity established to manage the Building xxx .
2. The Defendant is Fereydoon (“the Defendant”), Owners of a unit, Feriha.
3. On 7 October 2013, pursuant to Strata Title Law ( DIFC
4. The Claimant alleges that they invoiced the Defendant to pay service charges in relation to the Unit Feriha. However, the Defendant has failed to pay these charges totalling the amount of AED 49,890.98, despite a number of follow-ups and letters.
5. The Defendant failed to acknowledge the Claim within the deadline given by the Registry
6. On 5 January 2015 and 13 January 2015, the Registry held a consultation and both parties attended. After the consultation the Defendant settled the amount claimed in regards to the service charge but refused to pay the Court
7. On 25 January 2015, the Claimant amended the Claim Form and claimed the sum of AED 4,404.48 including the Court fee for the amended claim form.
8. On 9 April 2015, both the Claimant and the Defendant appeared before me for a hearing in regards to the amended claim Form.
9. Rule 53.70 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts states that:
“the SCT may not order a party to a small claim to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to the appeal, except:
(1) Such party of any Courts or
(2) Such further costs as the SCT may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.”10. The Defendant did not provide any evidence indicating that the Claimant is responsible to pay the costs of the proceedings or that the Defendant behaved in an unreasonable manner. In fact, the Defendant cooperated with the Claimant and settled the matter as soon as he was aware of the claim but refused to settle the Court Fee and debt collector’s fees.
11. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant incurred damage as a result of the delay. The Claimant did not submit any evidence to that effect. Therefore, the Court rejects his request.
FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Claimant’s application in regards to costs be dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Nassir Al Nasser
Date of issue: 30 April 2015