Successful Defence of the Client before the AIFC Court

The AIFC Court applied the prima facie standard of proof, holding that the Customer’s refusal to sign the Certificate of Completion, as expressed in an electronic communication, constituted sufficient evidence.

In this matter before the AIFC Court (the “Court”), the claimant (the “Contractor”) sought to recover an outstanding payment for services rendered from the defendant (the “Customer”). The Court dismissed the claim, finding that the Contractor was in breach of the contract, relying primarily on the facts set out in the Customer’s electronic correspondence.

The contract required the Customer to provide a substantiated written refusal to sign the Certificate of Completion; otherwise, the Certificate would be deemed signed. Nevertheless, the Court held that the Customer’s electronic message detailing objections to the quality of services amounted to prima facie evidence — that is, evidence sufficient to establish the asserted fact unless convincingly rebutted by the Contractor.

By contrast, in state courts, referencing such contractual provisions would have significantly increased the Contractor’s prospects of success due to the predominance of a strictly positivist approach and the courts’ formal adherence to the express terms of the contract.

This case underscores the advantages of the AIFC Court and AIFC law in adopting a more flexible, common law–aligned approach — particularly in the free application of the prima facie standard of proof. It was the application of this standard that enabled the Court to reach a fair and balanced outcome.

Background Note

In common law jurisdictions, standards of proof play a crucial role in determining when a fact may be treated as established based on the evidence presented. In civil matters, courts generally apply the “balance of probabilities” standard. The concept of prima facie evidence — evidence sufficient to prove a fact or claim unless rebutted by the opposing party — is also widely used across common law systems.

In the present case, despite the Customer’s failure to comply with the contractual obligation to submit a substantiated written refusal to sign the Certificate of Completion, the Court accepted the electronic message identifying deficiencies in the services as prima facie evidence, in the absence of any persuasive counter-evidence from the Contractor.