Miruba v Merke [2023] DIFC CT 424 (25 January 2023)

Miruba v Merke [2023] DIFC CT 424 (25 January 2023) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] The Dubai International Financial Centre You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Miruba v Merke [2023] DIFC CT 424 (25 January 2023) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2023/DCT_424.html Cite as: [2023] DIFC CT 424 [ New search ] [ Help ] Miruba v Merke [2022] DIFC SCT 424 January 25, 2023 SCT - Judgments and Orders Claim No: SCT 424/2022 THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BETWEEN MIRUBA Claimant and MERKE Defendant ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI UPON this claim having been called for a consultation before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 25 January 2023 with the Claimant’s representative in attendance and the Defendant failing to attend although served notice of the claim AND PURSUANT TO Rule 4.12 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Claimant’s name in this claim shall be amended to “MIRUBA”. 2. The SCT Registry shall issue an amended Claim Form accordingly. Issued by: Hayley Norton SCT Judge Date of Issue: 25 January 2023 At: 11am SCHEDULE OF REASONS 1. This claim relates to outstanding pending invoices by the Defendant. The Claim Form dated 23 November 2022 in this matter appears to name the Claimant as Miruba (). In review of the Claim Form and the documents filed in support of it, it appears that the Claimant, upon filing the Claim Form, erroneously included the name of a representative of the company alongside the company’s name. Given the nature of the dispute, such claims ought to have been brought by the company as an entity rather than a representative of the company in his/her personal capacity. 2. The error made by the Claimant within the Claim Form is a common one, and can be attributed to the nature of the Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) insofar as litigants are to represent their company in their personal capacity, with legal representation being permitted on a conditional basis only subject to authorisation being granted by a judge of the SCT. The SCT’s practice in these circumstances is for the judge presiding over the consultation or hearing to discover an error of incorrectly named litigants or parties and recommend that the parties be correctly spelled going forward. I have determined that this order be made of my own initiative, to save time and avoid any delay in issuing the judgment. 3. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Claimant’s name is to be amended to reflect the company’s name, Miruba. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2023/DCT_424.html