Latest articles
Caden v Caitlin [2012] DIFC SCT 001 — jurisdictional limits in employment bonus disputes (01 February 2012)
This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of the DIFC Small Claims Tribunal regarding employment contracts transferred from DIFC-licensed entities to non-DIFC entities.
BAO v BANU [2011] DIFC SCT 004 — Territorial limits of DIFC jurisdiction (01 October 2011)
The dispute arose from a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) originally entered into in October 2006 for the purchase of a villa located in a project outside the DIFC. The Claimant, Bao, alleged that upon paying the full purchase price in 2011, the Defendant, Banu, demanded an additional payment of…
BAMBI v BALLARD [2011] DIFC SCT 002 — The absence of statutory unfair dismissal rights in the DIFC (01 February 2011)
This judgment confirms that the DIFC Employment Law 2005 does not provide a standalone cause of action for unfair dismissal in the absence of enabling Regulations, effectively barring such claims in the Small Claims Tribunal.
Babak v Bandi [2011] DIFC SCT 005 — Enforcement of delivery timelines in real estate reservation forms (01 January 2011)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that pre-contractual reservation forms, when supported by management representations, constitute binding agreements regarding property delivery dates, entitling purchasers to damages for delays.
Adolf v Abia [2010] DIFC SCT 006 — Employment status and liquidation liability (30 December 2010)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that an employer cannot evade statutory employment obligations through claims of corporate liquidation or failure to transfer sponsorship if an employment relationship is substantively established.
ABIGAIL v LANCELOTE LOUNGE [2020] DIFC SCT 084 — Employment entitlements and the invalidity of training cost clawbacks (28 April 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of contractual freedom in DIFC employment disputes, ruling that employers cannot enforce training cost recovery clauses without evidence of actual expenditure or specific, non-essential training.
ABELINO v AAPO AND ABBAS [2010] DIFC SCT 003 — Employment dispute regarding resettlement allowance (01 December 2010)
The dispute centered on whether a resettlement allowance mentioned in a termination letter constituted an unconditional financial entitlement or a conditional benefit governed by the underlying Expatriate Assignment Policy (EAP).
AARON v ABELA [2010] DIFC SCT 004 — Contractual termination and jurisdictional scope (22 September 2010)
The dispute centered on a contract for the design, printing, and packaging of a tenant handbook for three villa projects. The Claimant, Aaron, sought AED 100,000 in compensation, alleging breach of contract after the Defendant, Abela, terminated the agreement.
ORRY v OFELJA [2026] DIFC SCT 593 — Limited permission to appeal granted in tenancy dispute (11 March 2026)
The dispute originated from a residential tenancy agreement concerning a unit within the DIFC jurisdiction. The parties entered into a contract on 20 July 2024, which expired on 19 July 2025.
LIV GENERAL TRADING v LANDEN [2019] DIFC SCT 578 — Dismissal of claim for repayment of ex-gratia settlement funds (28 February 2020)
The dispute centered on a contractual disagreement following the termination of the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant sought to recover a significant sum paid to the Defendant as part of a post-employment settlement, alleging that the Defendant had violated the confidentiality and non-disclosure…
LUELLA BANK v LAWSON [2019] DIFC SCT 565 — Debt recovery for unpaid credit card and loan balances (27 February 2020)
The dispute centers on the recovery of outstanding balances arising from a personal loan and credit card agreement entered into by the parties on 17 November 2016. Luella Bank alleged that Lawson failed to meet repayment obligations for two distinct credit facilities, specifically the "Lily Card"…
Layla Management v Lucas [2019] DIFC SCT 559 — Unpaid rent and the enforceability of verbal tenancy agreements (28 February 2020)
The dispute centered on a claim for unpaid rent totaling AED 196,875.00, which the Claimant, Layla Management, alleged was owed by the Defendants, Mr. Lucas and Miss Landy. The claim was bifurcated into two distinct periods: "Period One," covering 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, and "Period Two,"…
LEVIS BANK v MR. LOUISA [2019] DIFC SCT 554 — Debt recovery and the irrelevance of financial hardship (28 February 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that personal financial distress does not constitute a valid legal defense against the enforcement of contractual debt obligations in the DIFC.
LOSTON v LIUNA MARKET RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE [2019] DIFC SCT 549 — Enforcement of end-of-service entitlements and Article 18 penalties (11 March 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms the employer's burden to prove payment of terminal dues, awarding significant statutory penalties for failure to settle arrears.
Lennox v Lola Fashions Limited [2019] DIFC SCT 548 — Employment dispute over unpaid salary and failed counterclaim (27 February 2020)
The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the evidentiary burden required for employers to succeed in counterclaims for damages arising from alleged breaches of employment contracts.
ORMOND v ORAL [2025] DIFC SCT 543 — Procedural fairness in visa cancellation disputes (16 October 2025)
The litigation concerns a breakdown in the employment relationship between the Claimant, Ormond, and the Defendant, Oral, spanning from 2 December 2024 to 8 August 2025. The core of the dispute involves the Defendant’s refusal to cancel the Claimant’s residency visas unless the Claimant signed a…
OLAVE v OLEESA [2025] DIFC SCT 542 — Refusal of permission to appeal in payment services dispute (23 March 2026)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the finality of Small Claims Tribunal judgments, clarifying that payment facilitators do not bear the underlying commercial risk of fraudulent customer charge-backs.
LUCY v LEVI [2019] DIFC SCT 538 — Debt recovery and jurisdictional limits of opt-in clauses (27 February 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the strict evidentiary requirements for establishing DIFC jurisdiction over consumer banking products, ruling that a lack of an express written opt-in clause precludes the Court from adjudicating claims related to specific credit agreements.
Nilsa v Noori [2023] DIFC SCT 517 — Breach of contract regarding pro-rata service charge refund (01 May 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the contractual obligations of parties regarding property transfer delays and the legal effect of virtual participation in DIFC completion appointments.
Nilsa v Noori [2023] DIFC SCT 517 — Property jurisdiction over arbitration clauses (25 March 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that the physical location of real property within the DIFC creates an overriding jurisdictional nexus that supersedes contractual arbitration clauses.
OKPARA v ORALEE [2025] DIFC SCT 514 — Permission to appeal refused in visa consultancy fee dispute (07 January 2026)
The dispute centered on a contract for visa consultancy services, specifically the application for a Portuguese D2 visa. The Claimant, Okpara, engaged the Defendant, Oralee, to facilitate his application, paying a professional fee of AED 15,570.
NATE v NIXON [2023] DIFC SCT 513 — Default judgment for unpaid end-of-service entitlements (29 May 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal confirms an employer's liability for outstanding salary, notice pay, and gratuity following a failure to file a formal defence.
KINS v KRINA HOLDINGS [2019] DIFC SCT 511 — Statutory penalties for delayed end-of-service payments (26 December 2019)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the strict application of Article 19 of the DIFC Employment Law, affirming that settlement negotiations do not constitute unreasonable conduct sufficient to waive statutory penalties.
Nyla v Naomi Limited [2023] DIFC SCT 510 — Appeal regarding leave pay calculation (03 May 2024)
The dispute centered on the quantum of payment in lieu of untaken annual leave awarded to the Claimant, Nyla, by the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). The Defendant, Naomi Limited, challenged the methodology used by H.E.