Papel Payment Services Provider LLC (Respondent) v Monitox Ltd (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0086

Parties

Appellant(s)

Monitox Ltd

Respondent(s)

Papel Payment Services Provider LLC

Issue

(1) When should the Inner House of the Court of Session disturb evaluative findings made by the Outer House? (2) Did natural justice require that the appellant, a Scottish company, be given notice of its right of appeal against an Emirati debt judgment in English as well as in Arabic?

Facts

Monitox Ltd (“Monitox”), a Scottish company, contracted with a Dubai company, Papel Payment Services Provider LLC (“Papel”). The agreement was governed by the law of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Emirate of Dubai. The relationship between the two parties collapsed. Papel terminated the contract and submitted two invoices for a total of circa $157,000 to Monitox. Monitox accepted in correspondence that it owed this debt but did not pay it. Monitox maintains that it made the acknowledgment in error and does not owe Papel any such debt. Papel initiated proceedings against Monitox in Dubai’s Court of First Instance. Articles 143 and 144 of the UAE’s Civil Procedure Law (“CPL”) set out a ‘payment order procedure’. This procedure a mechanism for rapid recovery of commercial debts. Where a debt for a fixed amount is unequivocally acknowledged by the debtor, the creditor may send the debtor a notice requiring payment within five days. If this notice is not complied with, the creditor may obtain a judgement from an Emirati court within three days. This judgment on the debtor. Service of such documents is primarily in Arabic, although in some cases English is also used. Under Article 147 of the UAE CPL, the debtor then has 30 days to appeal against the judgment. On 7 September 2023, Monitox received an Emirati notice in Arabic requiring payment of the debt within five days from the email address of an Emirati process server. The email contained a link to an English translation of the notice. Monitox did not realise what this email was and did not click on the link. Judgment was entered against Monitox in the Dubai Court of First Instance on 30 September 2023. The Dubai court sent the judgment to Monitox twice, entirely in Arabic on 5 October and mainly in Arabic with a paragraph in English explaining that it was a judgment on 13 October. A Monitox employee briefly attempted to translate these emails using Google Translate but then gave up. Papel also published an Arabic advertisement in a Dubai newspaper. Unsurprisingly, Monitox did not see this advertisement. The thirty-day window for Monitox to appeal therefore passed without it realising that judgment had been entered against it in Dubai. Papel then sought to enforce the Dubai judgment in Scotland. The Outer House of the Court of Session held that it would be contrary to natural justice to enforce the judgment. Service of the notice and judgment wholly or primarily in Arabic had deprived Monitox of its right of appeal against the Dubai judgment. The Inner House of the Court of Session overturned this conclusion, noting Monitox had agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Emirati courts and that those courts’ primary language is Arabic. Monitox now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

19 June 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top