Merina v (1) Marwan (2) Marald [2021] DIFC SCT 030 (01 March 2021)

Merina v (1) Marwan (2) Marald [2021] DIFC SCT 030 (01 March 2021)

The Court found that the LPO terms, including the arbitration and governing law clauses, prevailed and there was no valid, mutual, written opt-in to the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction. The Claimant's unilateral inclusion of a jurisdiction clause on invoices did not constitute a binding agreement to opt-in. Therefore, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] DIFC SCT 030
Parties
Claimant: Merina; First Defendant: Marwan; Second Defendant: Marald
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Dismissal
Outcome
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clauses, Opt in Jurisdiction, Contract Formation
Civil Procedure Contract Law Jurisdiction Arbitration Clauses Opt in Jurisdiction Contract Formation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merina

Claimant

Marwan

First Defendant

Marald

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over the claim based on the parties' agreements and applicable law clauses
  2. 2 Whether the parties validly opted-in to the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the LPO terms, including the arbitration and governing law clauses, prevailed and there was no valid, mutual, written opt-in to the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction. The Claimant's unilateral inclusion of a jurisdiction clause on invoices did not constitute a binding agreement to opt-in. Therefore, the DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • This Claim be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
  • The DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.