Golda LLC v Gilam [2016] DIFC SCT 127 (04 October 2016)

Golda LLC v Gilam [2016] DIFC SCT 127 (04 October 2016)

The DIFC Courts and Small Claims Tribunal lack jurisdiction because neither party is a DIFC entity, the contract was not performed in the DIFC, and there is no specific, clear, and express opt-in to DIFC Courts' jurisdiction between the Claimant and Defendant. The opt-in clause in the AOS applies only to the Defendant and Buyer, not the Claimant.

Citation
[2016] DIFC SCT 127
Parties
Claimant: Golda LLC Real Estate Broker; Defendant: Gilam
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
04 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Contractual Disputes, Opt in Clauses
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Contractual Disputes Opt in Clauses

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golda LLC Real Estate Broker

Claimant

Gilam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DIFC Courts and Small Claims Tribunal have jurisdiction over the dispute between the Claimant and Defendant under the relevant contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The DIFC Courts and Small Claims Tribunal lack jurisdiction because neither party is a DIFC entity, the contract was not performed in the DIFC, and there is no specific, clear, and express opt-in to DIFC Courts' jurisdiction between the Claimant and Defendant. The opt-in clause in the AOS applies only to the Defendant and Buyer, not the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The Claimant’s claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.