[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Ninian v Nixie [2024] DIFC SCT 201 (06 June 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_201.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 201

[New search] [Help]

Ninian v Nixie [2024] DIFC SCT 201

June 06, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 201/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS

BETWEEN

NINIAN

Claimant

and

NIXIE

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service dated 22 May 2024 setting out its intention to contest the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge”)

AND UPON this Claim having been called for a Jurisdiction Hearing before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 5 June 2024, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant’s Jurisdictional Challenge is dismissed.

2. The DIFC Courts has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this Claim.

3. Each party shall bear his own costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date: 6 June 2024
At: 1pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant is Ninian (the “Claimant”), an individual filing a claim against the Defendant regarding his employment at the Defendant’s company.

2. The Defendant is Nixie (the “Defendant”), a company registered and located in DIFC, Dubai, UAE.

3. On 20 May 2024, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking various employment claims in the sum of AED 123,832.25.

4. On 22 May 2024, the Defendant filed its Acknowledgment of Service contesting the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

5. A jurisdiction hearing was duly listed before me on 5 June 2024 at which the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative appeared.

6. The Defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts on the grounds that the Claimant’s Employment Contract falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Economic Development (DED).

7. The Defendant adds that the Employment Contract, which has been signed and agreed upon by both parties, clearly states that any disputes arising from or related to the employment will be governed by the laws and regulations of the DED, and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the United Arab Emirates.

8. The Claimant submits that the Defendant is a DIFC entity and as a former employee he worked at the Defendant’s DIFC premises. This was confirmed within an exit interview document provided by the Defendant in support of its jurisdiction application. In addition, the Claimant submits that on 21 May 2024, the Defendant filed a claim against the Claimant with the SCT for an alleged breach of contract prior to challenging the jurisdiction of this claim.

9. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has provided a Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization (MOHRE) contract that expired in January 2022 prior to the Defendant registering its company in the DIFC.

10. The Claimant adds that the Defendant carried out its services from its DIFC premises where the Claimant was based and delivered services to clients.

11. The Claimant provided a DIFC employment card which confirms that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant in the DIFC.

12. I find that the Defendant has two trade licenses, one license was issued from onshore Dubai under the DED and is due to expire on 18 March 2025, and the second is a DIFC trade license which is due to expire on 23 November 2024.

13. I find that the Claimant’s Employment Contract states that the contract is governed by the UAE Labour Law, however, no employment card nor work permit has been issued to the Claimant as an employee of the company located in onshore Dubai. In fact, the Claimant has been provided with a DIFC employment card which confirms that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendant at its DIFC location.

14. As the Claimant has a golden visa sponsorship is not required by his employer.

15. Although the Defendant submits that the Employment Agreement is governed by UAE Law, the UAE Law does not apply in the DIFC.

16. The jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts is determined by Article 5(A) of the Judicial Authority Law, Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended (the “JAL”), which provides a number of limited gateways through which the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction over a claim, which are, as relevant:

“(a) Civil or commercial claims and actions to which the DIFC or any DIFC Body, DIFC Establishment or Licensed DIFC Establishment is a party;

(b) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to a contract or promised contract, whether partly or wholly concluded, finalised or performed within DIFC or will be performed or is supposed to be performed within DIFC pursuant to express or implied terms stipulated in the contract;

(c) Civil or commercial claims and actions arising out of or relating to any incident or transaction which has been wholly or partly performed within DIFC and is related to DIFC activities; . . .

(e) Any claim or action over which the Courts have jurisdiction in accordance with DIFC Laws and DIFC Regulations. . .

. . . civil or commercial claims or actions where the parties agree in writing to file such claim or action with [the DIFC Courts] whether before or after the dispute arises, provided that such agreement is made pursuant to specific, clear and express provisions.”

17. I find that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendant’s DIFC entity and in accordance with Article 5(A) of JAL, I find that the DIFC Courts have the jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim as the Defendant is a DIFC entity and the Claimant is an employee of that entity.

18. In addition, I find that the law governing the Employment Contract shall be the DIFC Employment Law and not the UAE Labour Law.