Marto v (1) Murf (2) Minus [2023] DIFC CFI 027 (19 June 2023)

Marto v (1) Murf (2) Minus [2023] DIFC CFI 027 (19 June 2023)

The court held that Article 11 of the Distributor Agreement requires all disputes to be referred to DIAC, and the Claimant is both entitled and bound to commence proceedings there, including the present dispute.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CFI 027
Parties
Claimant: Marto; Defendant: Murf; Defendant: Minus
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
19 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Order With Reasons at First Instance
Outcome
Claim referred to arbitration
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Distributor Agreement
Contract Law Arbitration Arbitration Clause Enforcement Jurisdiction Distributor Agreement

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marto

Claimant

Murf

Defendant

Minus

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Order With Reasons at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 11 of the Distributor Agreement requires disputes to be referred to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant must commence proceedings at DIAC

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Article 11 of the Distributor Agreement requires all disputes to be referred to DIAC, and the Claimant is both entitled and bound to commence proceedings there, including the present dispute.

Court Disposition

Claim referred to arbitration

Orders

  • All disputes under the Agreement must be referred to DIAC arbitration.
  • Claimant is entitled and bound to commence proceedings at DIAC, including the present dispute.