Latest articles
MARTEN v MARIKKA [2023] DIFC SCT 025 — Uncontested employment termination entitlements (17 March 2023)
The dispute concerns the recovery of unpaid employment entitlements following the summary termination of the Claimant, who served as a Social Media Executive. The Claimant sought a total of AED 25,231.98, comprising unpaid salary for December 2022, notice period pay, end-of-service gratuity, and…
LEMMA v LANCHO [2022] DIFC SCT 025 — Tenancy security deposit dispute (22 March 2022)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the evidentiary burden on tenants to prove property condition at the commencement of a lease when seeking the return of a security deposit.
Zander v Zora [2019] DIFC SCT 025 — landlord liability for pre-existing property defects (21 February 2019)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the evidentiary burden on landlords seeking to deduct maintenance costs from security deposits when tenants have provided documented notice of pre-existing property damage.
LISTON v LAET [2022] DIFC SCT 024 — Landlord’s failure to provide notice of non-renewal does not trigger automatic lease extension (16 March 2022)
The dispute concerned a residential lease for an apartment within the DIFC, where the Claimants, Liston and Lafti, sought a court-ordered renewal of their tenancy agreement for an additional year on existing terms.
Lucinethlucineth v Lutinalutina Telecom Group [2019] DIFC ARB 005: The High Cost of Procedural Obstruction in Award Enforcement
How Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke dismantled a meritless public policy challenge to secure the integrity of ICC arbitral awards. On 8 August 2019, H.E.
Licona v Lavin [2021] DIFC SCT 024 — jurisdictional limits on consumer banking claims (05 April 2021)
The Claimant, Licona, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, Lavin, to recover outstanding debts across three distinct financial products: a Personal Loan, a Car Loan Agreement, and a Mastercard credit card. The total amount sought by the bank reached AED 430,973.77.
Latha v Lavni [2022] DIFC SCT 022 — Software development refund dispute (21 March 2022)
The dispute centered on a tri-party agreement dated 30 June 2019, under which the Claimant, Latha, engaged the Defendant, Lavni, and a third party to develop and implement a software program.
IMELDA PSJC v IRA [2018] DIFC SCT 022 — jurisdictional dismissal for lack of DIFC nexus (26 February 2018)
The claimant, Imelda PSJC, initiated proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal seeking to recover a total of AED 131,730.74. The underlying cause of action stemmed from an alleged default on a credit card payment and a personal cash loan.
Frances v Flera Bank [2015] DIFC SCT 022 — Termination for gross misconduct and the forfeiture of end-of-service benefits (25 March 2015)
The Claimant, a former Trader Assistant at Flera Bank, initiated proceedings in the SCT seeking a total of USD $42,110.70. This sum comprised claims for end-of-service gratuity, payment in lieu of notice, unpaid salaries for the period following his suspension, and compensation for untaken annual…
HAGEN v HANNIE [2017] DIFC SCT 021 — Enforceability of legal service contracts via email correspondence (28 February 2017)
The dispute arose from a breakdown in the professional relationship between the Claimant, an international law firm, and the Defendant, a former DIFC employee. The Claimant sought payment for legal work performed between 26 July 2016 and 28 July 2016, following initial consultations regarding the…
JAHEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY v JAFNA MARKETING ESTABLISHMENT [2019] DIFC SCT 020 — Enforcement of unpaid invoices under a DIFC-seated jurisdiction clause (29 May 2019)
This judgment clarifies the procedural consequences of a defendant’s failure to attend a Small Claims Tribunal hearing and affirms the enforceability of DIFC jurisdiction clauses in commercial supply agreements.
JIMENA DC DMCC v THE ZAHIR RESTAURANT [2019] DIFC SCT 019 — Unpaid social media service invoices and contract formation (03 March 2019)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that email correspondence and partial performance constitute a binding service agreement, even in the absence of a formal signed contract.
DELORES v DEMIR [2013] DIFC SCT 019 — Tenancy contract expiration and the non-applicability of onshore Dubai rental laws (08 October 2013)
The dispute arose from a residential tenancy agreement concerning a unit located within the Dubai International Financial Centre. The Claimant, Delores, had entered into a contract with the Defendant, Demir, for a 12-month term.
Nach v Nadira [2024] DIFC SCT 018 — Breach of legal services engagement (04 April 2024)
The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the procedural boundaries of the Rules of the DIFC Courts, confirming that standard default judgment mechanisms are incompatible with the summary nature of SCT proceedings.
Mahina v Mahesa [2022] DIFC SCT 018 — Enforcing contractual snagging procedures and payment obligations (16 February 2022)
The dispute centered on a construction contract for residential renovation works. The Claimant, Mahina, sought to recover an outstanding balance for services rendered, while the Defendant, Mahesa, contested the payment, citing unfinished works and disputes over variation costs.
LOGAN EQUIPMENT RENTAL v LAYDIA DIGITAL [2020] DIFC SCT 018 — Breach of contract for unpaid equipment hire (04 March 2020)
The dispute centers on a claim for unpaid rental fees regarding a 12-meter electric scissor lift (the "Machine"). Logan Equipment Rental (the "Claimant") asserted that they provided a quotation to Laydia Digital (the "Defendant") for the hire of the equipment, which the Defendant accepted.
IHACA v IRUS [2018] DIFC SCT 018 — Jurisdictional limits in banking debt recovery (31 May 2018)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that banking institutions cannot unilaterally invoke DIFC Court jurisdiction for retail debt recovery absent an express, written agreement or a clear nexus to the DIFC.
FARIDOON v FAUSTINA [2015] DIFC SCT 018 — Employment rights during probation (12 March 2015)
The dispute arose from the resignation of Faustina, who was employed as a therapist by the entity represented by Faridoon. Faustina resigned on 9 February 2015, during what was contractually defined as a six-month probationary period.
DELMAN v DELOISE [2013] DIFC SCT 018 — Tenancy expiration and the non-applicability of Dubai real estate law in the DIFC (08 October 2013)
The dispute arose from a disagreement over the expiration of a residential lease and a subsequent demand for a rent increase. The Claimant, as the tenant, sought to challenge the landlord's right to increase the rent and the landlord's failure to provide notice of non-renewal.
LUNA v LINIE INTERNATIONAL [2020] DIFC SCT 017 — Unlawful salary deductions and the timing of Article 19 penalties (18 March 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the strict limitations on employer-led salary deductions and confirms that Article 19 penalties for late payment of end-of-service entitlements cannot be triggered until the statutory 14-day grace period has elapsed.
FEMKE COMPANY v FELIKS CORPORATION [2015] DIFC SCT 017 — failure to establish contractual privity (24 August 2015)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the necessity of distinct corporate identity and evidence of contractual privity in claims for unpaid consulting fees.
DEB v DECIMUS [2013] DIFC SCT 017 — Employer liability for unauthorized deductions from end-of-service benefits (26 November 2013)
The dispute arose from the termination of an employment relationship between the Claimant, DEB, and the Defendant, DECIMUS. The Claimant sought recovery of outstanding financial benefits following her resignation on 3 September 2013, after having been employed since 1 January 2013.
MADONNA v MAEL INVESTMENTS [2021] DIFC SCT 016 — Employment contract performance conditions and probation (02 March 2021)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the enforceability of performance-based salary conditions and the mandatory nature of statutory annual leave entitlements during probation periods.
MAHINA v MAHFUZ [2022] DIFC SCT 015 — Employment dues and investment recovery (16 February 2022)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the enforceability of unpaid salary claims and the right to rescind investment agreements following a fundamental breach of contract in a failed tech start-up venture.