Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank PSC [2022] DIFC CA 007 (28 November 2022)

Lara Basem Musa Khoury v Mashreq Bank PSC [2022] DIFC CA 007 (28 November 2022)

The Claim Form was not served within the four-month period required by RDC 7.20(a), and the deemed date of service under RDC 9.27 was out of time. The Master Investment Agreement's jurisdiction clause was asymmetric and did not constitute a specific, clear, and express opt-in agreement by both parties for Ms Khoury to bring claims in the DIFC Courts. Therefore, the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

Citation
[2022] DIFC CA 007
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Lara Basem Musa Khoury; Respondent/defendant: Mashreq Bank PSC
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
28 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From DIFC Court of First Instance to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction Clauses, Time Limits for Service, Interpretation of Contracts, Opt in Jurisdiction Agreements
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Banking Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Clauses Time Limits for Service Interpretation of Contracts Opt in Jurisdiction Agreements

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lara Basem Musa Khoury

Appellant/claimant

Mashreq Bank PSC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From DIFC Court of First Instance to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claim Form was served within the time period allowed under the DIFC Rules of Court (RDC)
  2. 2 Whether the DIFC Court has jurisdiction over the claim based on the Master Investment Agreement's jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

The Claim Form was not served within the four-month period required by RDC 7.20(a), and the deemed date of service under RDC 9.27 was out of time. The Master Investment Agreement's jurisdiction clause was asymmetric and did not constitute a specific, clear, and express opt-in agreement by both parties for Ms Khoury to bring claims in the DIFC Courts. Therefore, the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appeal is dismissed.
  • The Appellant must pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed by the Registrar on the standard basis if not agreed.