The DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) has long attracted small- to mid-size business owners and individual litigants, as well as corporates seeking a swift and efficient forum for lower-value disputes. Established in 2007 to provide an accessible mechanism for resolving less-than-complex and evidence-heavy matters, the SCT ensures that justice is delivered swiftly, proportionately, and confidentially – without the procedural formality or cost associated with higher-value litigation.
Within this framework, questions frequently arise regarding the extent to which parties may be represented by lawyers before the SCT. The question is not merely procedural; it reflects the SCT’s broader policy on access to justice. The Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) make clear that representation before the SCT is not automatically granted but subject to judicial discretion. The relevant provisions, Articles 53.29 and 53.55 of the RDC, set out the conditions under which representation may be permitted at both the consultation and hearing stages.
Representation at the Consultation Stage – Article 53.29 of the RDC
Article 53.29 of the RDC stipulates:
“It is essential that each party attends the consultation in person. Parties may be represented by a lawyer after having sought permission from the SCT Judge hearing the consultation. A party may also be represented by a non-lawyer. Should permission be granted for a party to be represented by a lawyer, the other side must be given the opportunity to seek legal representation.”
This provision encapsulates two key principles that govern SCT proceedings: personal participation and equality of arms. The expectation is that each party will attend and present its case directly – as a litigant-in-person. Legal representation is not an automatic right but a matter for the SCT’s discretion, granted only were justified by the circumstances. The requirement that the opposing party be afforded an equal opportunity to engage representation further ensures procedural fairness and balance between litigants.
Representation at the Hearing Stage – Article 53.55 of the RDC
Article 53.55 extends the same philosophy to the hearing stage:
“(1) A party should present his own case at a hearing.
(2) A party may be represented at the hearing by a non-lawyer or lawyer only after obtaining permission from the SCT, which is to be given where it appears to the SCT on reasonable grounds that it is necessary in the circumstances.”
This reinforces the default position that parties are expected to present their own cases. The SCT may grant permission where it considers representation necessary – for instance, where the issues are legally complex or where fairness requires legal assistance.
Sub-article (3) introduces a procedural safeguard requiring advance notice:
“If a party wishes to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer, that party must inform the SCT and the opposing party that it is intending to do so four days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing in order to allow sufficient time for the opposing party to also instruct a lawyer if he wishes to do so.”
This requirement preserves parity and prevents tactical advantage, allowing both sides to prepare on equal footing.
The Policy Rationale – Access to Justice and Cost Efficiency
The SCT’s restrained approach to representation aligns with its cost framework. Under Article 53.79 of the RDC, “the general rule is that each party shall bear its own costs.” The SCT may order limited reimbursement, typically a portion of court fees or, in exceptional cases, additional costs where a party has behaved unreasonably. Importantly, the rule does not contemplate the recovery of lawyers’ fees in the ordinary course.
This cost regime underlines the SCT’s fundamental policy objective: to provide a proportionate and affordable forum for dispute resolution. If legal representation were freely permitted while lawyers’ fees remained unrecoverable, the cost of engaging counsel could easily outweigh the claim’s value.
The SCT’s discretion to allow representation only when deemed necessary therefore aligns with its broader mandate to promote access to justice and maintain proportionality between cost, speed, and claim value.
At the appellate stage, Article 53.118 of the RDC maintains this balance by confirming that costs in relation to an appeal are assessed at the Judge’s discretion. This allows flexibility to address fairness case-by-case, without undermining the SCT’s overall ethos of simplicity and accessibility.
Practical Implications
Parties should approach SCT proceedings on the assumption that they will appear personally. That said, the process is intentionally informal and user-friendly. Requests for legal representation should be specific, substantiated, and justified by reference to the case’s complexity or fairness considerations. Corporate litigants are advised to nominate an internal representative familiar with the dispute and, where appropriate, seek limited assistance from counsel in preparing submissions or evidence.
For lawyers, the SCT framework does not exclude involvement but rather defines it narrowly. Counsel may still assist behind the scenes – drafting pleadings, advising on law and legal arguments/strategies, and preparing documentation – while respecting the SCT’s preference for direct party engagement during consultations and hearings.
Seek Legal Advice
For tailored legal advice on SCT proceedings, please contact our Associate, Alanood Alriyami.