This issue is filled with great insights and expert commentary on areas that are relevant to the legal landscape and highlight how the business community is embracing technology, media and telecommunications. There are various topics covered, from new ways of working and digital transformation in the finance sector to data protection regulatory updates and guidance. We also have a series of articles that focus on e-commerce across a number of jurisdictions.
You will also find insights from our lawyers around real estate analytics, tech trends, and data centres.
We hope this edition of Law Update provides some useful food for thought – enjoy the read!Take a read of the edition
Tariq Idais - Senior Associate
Sakher Alaqaileh - Senior Associate
On 24 June 2016, a ship owners and its subsidiary (the “Defendants”) sent a purchase order to a bunkering company (the “Claimant”) for the purchase of bunkers. The Defendants requested that the Claimant supply the ship with 150 cubic metres of marine gas oil (“MGO”). On the same day, the bunkering company supplied the ship with the required MGO and the bunker delivery notes were signed by the ship’s captain and stamped with the ship’s stamp confirming receipt of the MGO. On 4 July 2016, a commercial invoice for the MGO was sent by the bunkering company to the ship owners. However, the ship owners did not settle the price of the supplied MGO.
The Nature of the Claim
On 25 September 2016, the Claimant obtained an arrest order from Dubai Courts against the ship, which was at Rashid Port at the time. The Claimant based the arrest order request on the purchase order and the bunker delivery notes. On 11 October 2016, the Claimant then brought a substantive claim before the Court against the ship owners and its subsidiary seeking USD 65,750, being the value of the supplied MOG, validation of the arrest order against the ship, and legal interest at the rate of 12% from 4 July 2016 until the date of full payment.
The Court’s Judgment
Although the Defendants had been served with the arrest order and the substantive claim legally via the ship’s captain, they did not appear before Dubai Court of First Instance. On 14 November 2016, the Court handed down its judgment as follows:
This is because the Execution Court should not need to issue an order to sell the ships and/or appoint an expert to evaluate the ship’s price in order to auction the ships during the enforcement proceedings, as the judgment itself will be include the order of sale, the starting price of the ship, and the conditions of the sale.
It should be noted that Article 121 of the Maritime Law specifies a deadline for appealing judgments, including validation of arrest orders over ships, of 15 days from the date the judgment is pronounced. However, the practice of the UAE Courts is to permit appeals filed within 30 days under Article 159 of the Civil Procedures Law. Accordingly, it could be argued that since the Dubai Courts have started applying Article 121, the deadline for appealing the above-mentioned judgments should be 15 days and not 30 days. The deadline set out in Article 121 is yet untested by the Dubai Courts, though we consider that the point is likely to be determined by the Dubai Courts in the near future.