Papel Payment Services Provider LLC against Monitox LTD (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff obtained an ex parte payment order in the UAE (Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance) on 30 September 2023 for specified USD and GBP sums against the Defendant, a company with its registered office in Scotland and sole place of business in London. Pre-application notices and subsequent court notices were sent to the Defendant by email and an advertisement in an Emirati newspaper; the emails and advertisement were in Arabic, with only parts of the material later including partial English translation. The Plaintiff brought a domestic commercial action seeking decree conform to the UAE order. The commercial judge (first instance) found that the manner in which the Defendant was notified of the UAE order amounted to a breach of natural justice and dismissed the action. The Plaintiff reclaimed (appealed) that decision to the Extra Division, Inner House. Evidence at proof included witness testimony from corporate principals and officers, the Plaintiff's general counsel, and expert evidence on UAE procedure. The appellate court delivered an opinion allowing the reclaiming motion and ordering the Defendant to pay the sums found due by the Dubai court, with interest.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the foreign payment order obtained in the UAE was obtained in breach of the principles of natural justice such that it should not be recognised or enforced by the Scottish court.
2. Whether the UAE payment order procedure as applied in this case, including the form and language of notices, deprived the Defendant of a sufficient opportunity to present its case (i.e. whether the procedure or its application offended Scottish principles of natural justice).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant had admitted liability and promised payment; the UAE payment order procedure is a legitimate fast-track process for undisputed debts and was followed.
• The Defendant received the pre-application notice (in English) and failed to read it; failure to read a validly served writ is not a defence under domestic law.
• Parties contracted to UAE law and exclusive Dubai jurisdiction; they should expect proceedings and correspondence in Arabic and to take steps (translate or obtain local counsel) if required.
• Allowing refusal of enforcement would defeat legitimate expectations of parties who submitted to foreign jurisdiction and would unjustly enable the Defendant to avoid a conceded debt.

Respondent's Arguments

• The UAE payment order procedure (or its application in this case) offended Scottish conceptions of natural justice because the Defendant was not given sufficient notice in a language it could understand and no effective opportunity to challenge the order before it became unchallengeable.
• Specific October notices were inadequate: one was entirely in Arabic; the other partly translated but misstated key information and failed to inform, in English, of the right, manner and time for appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court began by accepting the commercial judge's factual findings on service and witness credibility and that those findings did not meet the threshold for reversal. The court distilled the governing legal principle: natural justice is breached where a litigant has not been given sufficient notice of foreign proceedings so as to have an opportunity to present their case at some stage. The court reviewed the applicable evidence: the UAE payment order procedure (Part 11 of the UAE CPL) as explained by the Emirati expert; the operation of service by email under UAE rules; the content and language of the pre-application Legal Notice and the two court notices of October 2023; and the fact the Defendant had earlier accepted liability in an internal email.

The court considered the relevance of translation and international instruments (Hague Service Convention; EU regulations) but noted Dubai is not party to those and that those instruments do not impose an absolute translation requirement. The court examined whether the October notices, and the advertisement, effectively conveyed the fact of judgment and the right to appeal in a manner that afforded the Defendant a realistic opportunity to act.

Balancing factors, the court observed: (a) the UAE procedure permits a payment order without prior judicial hearing, with post-judgment rights of appeal; (b) the plaintiff had provided an English Legal Notice pre-application; (c) the court notices mentioned the right of appeal in Arabic but did not set out in English how or when to appeal; (d) one emailed notice was entirely in Arabic and the other partly translated but misstated the amount; (e) the advertisement was in Arabic and unlikely to reach the Defendant. The court concluded that although there were deficiencies in the manner of intimation, in the whole circumstances—taking into account the contract choice of UAE law and Dubai jurisdiction, the prior English Legal Notice, the email addresses used, the availability of contact details and the means to seek translation/legal advice—the Defendant was given sufficient notice to have an opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, no breach of natural justice was made out on the balance of probabilities.

Holding and Implications

The reclaiming motion is allowed; the decision of the commercial judge is recalled and decree is granted for the sums found due by the Dubai court.

Direct effect: The Defendant is ordered to pay the amounts awarded by the Dubai court (USD 130,725 and GBP 26,874.89) with interest as found by that court. The appellate court sustained the Plaintiff's pleas-in-law to the extent of those sums and repelled the Defendant's pleas-in-law; interlocutor of 1 May 2025 was recalled. Questions of expenses were reserved. The opinion does not purport to establish a novel or general rule invalidating the UAE payment order procedure; it is a fact-specific application of the established principle that enforcement will be refused only where natural justice has been denied.