Effective Notice and Right to Challenge in Enforcement of UAE Payment Orders

Introduction

In Papel Payment Services Provider LLC v Monitox Ltd [2025] CSOH 41, the Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session considered whether a Scottish-registered company could enforce, at common law, an ex parte payment-order judgment obtained in the Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance. Papel, a Dubai-registered financial services provider, claimed unpaid fees under a UAE-governed Supply of Services Contract. Monitox, a Scottish-registered electronic money institution whose sole business was in London, challenged enforcement on the ground that it had no effective opportunity to challenge the Dubai payment order and that enforcement would therefore breach Scots principles of natural justice.

Summary of the Judgment

Lord Braid refused enforcement. Although the UAE’s payment order procedure offers a swift ex parte route for undisputed debts, it depends on effective service of notice and a subsequent opportunity to challenge the order by grievance (within 15 days) or appeal (within 30 days). In this case:

Papel served a pre-petition demand in English and Arabic on 7 September 2023;
No application documents were served on Monitox; the Dubai court issued judgment on 30 September 2023;
Notices of judgment (5 and 13 October 2023) and a newspaper advertisement (9 October 2023) were in Arabic or only partly in English, misstated key details and failed to inform Monitox in a language it understood of its right, deadline and procedure to appeal;
Monitox therefore had no real opportunity to present its case in Dubai.

Because these failings breached the twin pillars of natural justice—adequate notice and an effective opportunity to be heard—the Scottish court found the foreign judgment unenforceable and granted decree of absolvitor.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rudd v Rudd [1924] P 72, Crabtree v Crabtree 1929 SLT 675, Scott v Scott 1937 SLT 632 – a foreign judgment is not enforced if obtained in breach of natural justice.
Jacobson v Frachon (1927) 138 LT 386 – notice and opportunity to present one’s case are core requirements.
Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6 – English courts refuse enforcement where judgment debtor had insufficient notice.
British Seafood Ltd v Kruk [2008] EWHC 1528 (QB) – even where a summary procedure is provided, proper intimation and translation may be required.
Cancrie Investments Ltd v Haider [2024] EWHC 1876 (Comm) – reiteration of notice and opportunity to contest as heart of natural justice in enforcing UAE judgments.
Regulatory and service-of-process cases (Raheen v Nursing & Midwifery Council [2010] EWHC 2549 (Admin); Glasgow City Council Applicant 2025 SLT 112; Neilly v Nursing & Midwifery Council 2019 SC 565; Yaqoobi v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1160) – compliance with formalities is key, but actual notice and intelligibility may also matter.
Human Rights jurisprudence (Pellegrini v Italy (2002) 35 EHRR 2; Faniel v Belgium No 11892/08; Assunção Chaves v Portugal No 61226/08) – Article 6(1) ECHR guarantees knowledge of evidence, grounds and appeal mechanisms in civil proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Braid framed the test for enforcement of foreign judgments as threefold:

Competent jurisdiction of the foreign court;
Notice to the defendant of proceedings and judgment in sufficient time and form to enable a defence or appeal;
No breach of the debtor’s opportunity to present its case.

Although the UAE Federal Civil Procedure Law provides for ex parte payment orders in straightforward debt cases, it nonetheless guarantees post-judgment remedies (grievance and appeal) that must be meaningful. In this case the Dubai court granted judgment under Part 11 of Federal-Decree Law No 42/2022. Monitox received only:

An Arabic-only notice of judgment;
An Arabic newspaper advertisement;
A partly English notice containing errors and no intelligible statement of appeal rights or deadlines.

Because these intimation steps failed, Monitox had no realistic path to challenge the order—even though it had submitted to Dubai jurisdiction and the contract was UAE-governed. On a holistic view, the defender was denied a fair hearing as understood in Scots and European law. Enforcement in Scotland would thus be contrary to natural justice.

Impact

This decision establishes a clear precedent in Scots law for enforcement of foreign payment orders:

Courts will look beyond formal compliance with foreign procedure to its functional fairness;
Service of post-judgment notices must be in a language the debtor understands, identify the judgment clearly, and specify appeal procedures and deadlines;
Failure to provide effective notice will render the foreign order unenforceable;
Commercial parties and their advisers must ensure all foreign-court documents are properly translated and served if enforcement in Scotland may be sought.

The ruling reassures Scottish parties that the courts will protect procedural fairness while promoting comity with foreign legal systems that observe natural-justice standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Payment Order Procedure: A fast-track, ex parte route in UAE law allowing creditors to obtain a judgment for undisputed, fixed debts after serving a 5-day demand notice. Debtors can challenge by grievance (15 days) or appeal (30 days).
Summary Diligence vs Payment Orders: In Scotland, summary diligence on a registered deed is based on prior written consent; summary warrants address limited public debts. UAE payment orders rest on acknowledgments of debt, not prior process.
Natural Justice: Core fairness principles require: (1) notice of proceedings or judgment, (2) opportunity to present one’s case or lodge appeal. Enforcement of foreign judgments must respect these standards.
Service and Translation: Proper service under foreign rules does not suffice if the debtor cannot understand the notice. Translation into an intelligible language and clear instructions on how to challenge are essential.

Conclusion

Lord Braid’s decision in Papel v Monitox clarifies that Scottish courts will refuse to enforce foreign payment-order judgments when the defendant has not been given effective, intelligible notice of the judgment and of its rights to challenge it. The case underscores that procedural fairness—notice and opportunity to be heard—cannot be circumvented by ex parte foreign procedures, however reputable. Going forward, both creditors and debtors must ensure that any foreign-Court orders are accompanied by translations and clear guidance on appeal mechanisms if enforcement in Scotland may be contemplated.