Claim No. SCT 173/2021
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 OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
BETWEEN
LARUE
Claimant
and
LAPID
Defendant
| Hearing : | 10 August 2021 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 22 August 2021 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPONthis Claim being filed on 9 June 2021
AND UPONa hearing having been listed before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 10 August 2021 at which the Claimant’s representative was in attendance and the Defendant failed to appear although served notice of the Hearing
AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 170,588.63.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 8,529.43.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 22 August 2021
At: 2pm
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Larue, a company registered in Abu Dhabi, UAE (the “Claimant”),
2. The Defendant is Lapid, a company registered in Ras Al Khaimah, UAE (the “Defendant”).
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over unpaid invoices allegedly owed to the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to a Hire Agreement signed by the parties,
4. On 9 June 2021, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) for the payment of AED 170,588.63 and the court fee for the filing of this Claim.
5. On 30 June 2021, the Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service setting out its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.
6. On 15 July 2021, the DIFC Courts issued a Jurisdiction Order determining that it has jurisdiction to determine this claim.
7. On 29 July 2021, a consultation was listed before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo, at which the parties failed to reach an agreement.
8. On 5 August 2021, a hearing was listed before me, at which the Claimant’s representative was in attendance and the Defendant’s representative was absent.
9. Pursuant to Rule 53.61 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”), should a defendant fail to attend a listed hearing, the SCT may decide the claim on the basis of the evidence provided by the Claimant alone.
The Claim
10. The Claimant’s case is that they entered into an agreement with the Defendant to rent a boom lift and scissor lift from December 2020 to April 2021 for various sites with agreed payment terms of 30 days from the date of the invoice.
11. The Claimant alleges that, despite constant follow-up on payment, it has not received any payment for all hire invoices amounting to AED 170,588.63.
12. The Claimant also alleges that all hire invoices were submitted to the Defendant’s office and were, in turn, accepted by the Defendant. Moreover, the Claimant adds that the Defendant sent then a copy of three post-dated cheques in the amount of AED 124,792.51 against hire invoices from December 2020 to February 202, however the original post-dated cheques have not been released to the Claimant.
Discussion
13. Pursuant to the evidence before me, the Claimant has met its burden of proof by providing the Hire Agreements which were signed by the Defendant’s representative.
14. The Claimant also filed a Statement of Account which reflects the sums owed to the Claimant by the Defendant, in the sum of AED 170,588.63.
15. The Defendant failed to attend the Hearing, pursuant to which I directed that judgment be reserved pursuant to Rule 53.61 of the RDC.
Conclusion
16. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 170,588.63 being the payments owed for the Hire Agreement invoices.
17. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 8,529.43.