Ras Al Khaimah Rental and Property Disputes Committee Judgment 6 of 2021
Adnan Al Erqsousi Senior Associate, Litigation
Service of the statement of claim is an essential step by the claimant in commencing proceedings in the UAE, considering that proper legal notice establishes the defendant’s knowledge of the claimant’s action.
In 2018, the provisions of the UAE Civil Procedures Law No 11 of 1992 (the “CPL”), which govern the methods of service in UAE proceedings, were amended by Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018 concerning the Executive Regulations of Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 on the Civil Procedure Law (the “Cabinet Resolution”). The amendments introduced service by way of electronic means (e.g. recorded voice or video calls, text messages, and emails) in circumstances where physical service on parties had been the principal method of service previously.
In a recent judgment, the Ras Al Khaimah Rental and Property Disputes Committee (the “Committee”) established in its decision (Reconsideration Petition 6 of 2021) that physical service of proceedings on companies or establishments is now an exceptional method of service in the event service by electronic means is not available or failed to deliver (Article 6(1) of the Cabinet Resolution).
1. The person to be served shall be served by any of the following means: a) Recorded voice or video calls, SMS on mobile phones, smart applications, email or fax, or any similar means of modern technology or by any other means as mutually agreed between the parties from among the means of notification described in these Regulations.
b) By personal service, wherever he/she is located or at his/her domicile or place of residence or via his/her attorney-in-fact. If service cannot be effected for reasons attributable to the person to be served or he/she refuses to accept service, the same shall be deemed personal service. If the process server does not find the person to be served at his/her domicile or place of residence, the process server shall deliver the notice to any of the cohabitants; i.e. his/her spouse, kinsperson, in-law, or servant. However, if any such persons refuse to accept service or take the papers, or if the process server finds no one to whom notice can be validly communicated or delivered, or if the place of residence is closed, the process server shall proceed directly to post the notice in a conspicuous place on the door of the place of residence or on the court's website.
c) At his/her elected domicile.
d) At his/her workplace, but if person to be served is not found, the process server shall communicate or deliver the notice to his/her boss or to a person who is apparently in charge of management at the workplace or to any co-worker.
The defendant, a free zone company, filed a petition before the Committee requesting it to reconsider a judgment in which the Committee ordered the defendant to pay the claimant penalties for its delay in developing a plot of land located in Ras Al Khaimah.
The defendant had been served with notification of the proceedings before the proceedings by email. It pleaded irregularity of service of the statement of claim and argued that the claimant misled the Committee because he had deliberately sent the statement of claim to the wrong email address. The defendant also argued that service via email is an exceptional method of service under the CPL, and that the statement of claim should have been served in the ordinary method, i.e. by physical delivery to the defendant’s known headquarters.
The Committee held that the claimant must first serve notice of the statement of claim by the mechanism and means specified in Article 6(1)(a), failing which the exceptional method must be employed, namely service by way of delivery to the manager or his/her legal representative, at the headquarters of the private legal entity. In other words, personal service at the headquarters of a private legal entity is an exceptional method of service that follows attempts to effect service upon the legal entity by one of the methods of service described in Article 6(1)(a) of the Cabinet Resolution.
The Committee also found that the defendant was served/sent an email with notice of proceedings at the email address indicated in the sale contract signed with the claimant and there was no proof of failed service or a delivery failure from the server. This ruled out any suspicion of any fraud on the claimant’s part or deliberate effort by the claimant to mislead the court concerning service of the defendant by email.
The Committee’s decision suggests that the UAE courts will likely not only consider service by electronic means as reliable as other ordinary methods of service, but that it also takes precedence over such methods. However, it is important to bear in mind that according to Article 6 (1) of Cabinet Resolution the electronic means of service must be mutually agreed between the parties and there must be evidence of such an agreement in order to validly effect service.
For further information, please contact Adnan Al Erqsousi.
Published in July 2022
