LITT
Try LITT free
GAETANO v GAIA [2016] DIFC SCT 010 — Residential tenancy dispute over lease expiration and holdover occupation (03 March 2016)
The dispute centered on the status of a residential tenancy agreement for a unit located within the DIFC following the expiration of a renewed lease on 24 May 2015. The Claimant, Gaetano, sought legal intervention after the Defendant, Gaia, continued to occupy the premises without a formal renewal…
MACIAS v MADESH [2022] DIFC SCT 009 — Employment gratuity and Covid-19 unpaid leave (08 February 2022)
The dispute centered on the final financial settlement due to the Claimant, Macias, following his resignation from his position as a bartender at Madesh. The Claimant initiated proceedings seeking a total of AED 9,400.33, comprising unpaid end-of-service gratuity and compensation for accrued but…
JABULANI FINANCIAL SERVICES v JULISSA CAFE [2019] DIFC SCT 009 — Enforcement of unpaid commercial rent obligations (11 March 2019)
The dispute originated from a commercial tenancy agreement concerning units #1234, 234, and 567 located within the DIFC. The parties had entered into a three-year lease spanning from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019, with a total consideration of AED 1,424,000.00.
HANDE HOUSE RESIDENTIAL BODY CORPORATE v HALUK [2017] DIFC SCT 009 — Recovery of service charges and the evidentiary burden for legal fees (13 March 2017)
This judgment clarifies the limitations on a Body Corporate’s ability to recover legal fees from unit owners, emphasizing that such costs must be supported by documented proof of actual expenditure and justification for the services rendered.
MACIA BANK v MABILI [2021] DIFC SCT 008 — Partial recovery of personal loan debt (02 March 2021)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the strict evidentiary and jurisdictional requirements for banking debt recovery, distinguishing between enforceable loan agreements and unsupported credit facilities.
Fedora v The Fawcett [2015] DIFC SCT 008 — Employment benefit adjudication and evidentiary standards (25 March 2015)
The dispute arose from the termination of an employment relationship between the Claimant, Fedora, and the Defendant, The Fawcett LLC. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant failed to comply with the DIFC Employment Law regarding various financial entitlements and benefits.
EDVIN v EDWIGE [2014] DIFC SCT 008 — Breach of Interest Transfer Agreement (17 April 2014)
The dispute arose following the dissolution of a five-year partnership between the Claimant, Edvin, and the Defendant, Edwige. In October 2013, the parties entered into an Interest Transfer Agreement whereby Edvin agreed to purchase Edwige’s interests in their business.
Livana Commercial Bank v Linod [2020] DIFC SCT 007 — jurisdictional bifurcation in banking debt recovery (18 March 2020)
The dispute arose from a series of financial agreements between Livana Commercial Bank (PJSC) and an individual resident in Dubai, Linod. The Claimant initiated proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) to recover outstanding balances stemming from two distinct financial products: a personal…
Hamza v Heidi Law Firm [2017] DIFC SCT 004 — Employment offer withdrawal and conditions precedent (14 February 2017)
The dispute centered on whether the Claimant, a lawyer, had entered into a binding employment contract with the Defendant, a law firm, after receiving an offer letter that was subsequently withdrawn.
LUNIR (MIDDLE EAST) LLP v LUNIAL [2020] DIFC SCT 003 — Liability for court fees following unreasonable conduct (06 May 2020)
The dispute centered on an unpaid invoice for legal services provided by the Claimant, Lunir (Middle East) LLP, to the Defendant, Lunial, pursuant to an Engagement Letter signed on 12 June 2018.
Eileen v Ehud [2014] DIFC SCT 003 — Affirming exclusive jurisdiction over DIFC tenancy disputes (18 May 2014)
The dispute arose from a tenancy agreement for a one-bedroom apartment located within the DIFC. The Claimant, Eileen, sought to recover unpaid rent and secure the eviction of the Defendant, Ehud, following the expiration of their one-year tenancy contract.
GARRISON LLC v GLORIA LLC [2016] SCT 002 — Unlawful occupation and eviction following lease expiry (16 October 2016)
The dispute arose from the Defendant’s refusal to vacate a retail unit located within the DIFC after the underlying lease agreement had expired. The Claimant, Garrison LLC, purchased the premises on 31 March 2016, only to discover that the Defendant, Gloria LLC, remained in possession despite the…
MARCOS v MILLER [2022] DIFC SCT 001 — Enforceability of fixed-fee recruitment agreements and the evidentiary burden for performance guarantees (04 February 2022)
The dispute centers on the non-payment of professional fees for executive search services provided by the Claimant, Marcos, to the Defendant, Miller. The Claimant sought to recover the balance of unpaid invoices for the recruitment of a Group Chief Marketing Officer.
EIMHIR v EIRIK [2014] DIFC SCT 001 — Employment dispute regarding gratuity calculations and discretionary commissions (24 March 2014)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the application of salary-split methodologies in end-of-service gratuity calculations and reinforces the enforceability of discretionary bonus clauses in employment contracts.
DAFFODIL v DAAN [2013] DIFC SCT 001 — Employment benefits and discrimination claims (30 December 2013)
The dispute arose following the resignation of the Claimant, Daffodil, who had been employed by the Defendant, Daan, for nearly three years. The core of the litigation involved a disagreement over the final settlement of employment dues, which prompted the Claimant to initiate proceedings in the…
REGISTRAR OF DIFC COURTS DEFINITION [2016] DIFC CAO 001 — Administrative expansion of judicial support roles (13 March 2016)
This administrative order formalizes the functional delegation of authority within the DIFC Courts by broadening the definition of "Registrar" to encompass the full hierarchy of judicial support officers.
DRA Order No. 1 of 2016 in respect of the DIFC Courts Mandatory Code of Conduct [2016] DIFC CAO 001 — formalizing the role of the Academy of Law in professional conduct oversight (22 March 2016)
This administrative order establishes the revised regulatory framework for professional conduct within the DIFC Courts, specifically delegating the intake and processing of conduct-related complaints to the Dispute Resolution Authority (DRA) Academy of Law.
CHIEF JUSTICE MICHAEL HWANG — DIFC Rules of Court Order No. 1 of 2014 — Procedural Reform and the Implementation of RDC 2014 (01 February 2015)
The Order issued by Chief Justice Michael Hwang serves as the formal instrument for the adoption of the Rules of the DIFC Courts 2014. This administrative action was necessitated by the evolving requirements of the DIFC’s judicial infrastructure, following extensive public consultation periods.
DIFC Order No. 1 of 2009 — The formal introduction of specialized arbitration and small claims procedures (31 May 2009)
The DIFC legal framework required a dedicated mechanism to handle the increasing complexity of arbitration-related litigation and the need for a streamlined, cost-effective forum for smaller commercial disputes.
RULER OF DUBAI v DIFC COURTS [2007] DIFC CAO 001 — Enactment of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (01 January 2007)
The primary objective of this Order was to provide a definitive, permanent procedural code for the DIFC Courts, replacing the ad-hoc interim measures that had governed the judiciary since its inception.
DIFC COURTS SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ORDER NO. 1 OF 2021 — Consolidation of SCT procedural framework (20 April 2021)
Chief Justice Zaki Bin Azmi’s administrative order modernizes the Small Claims Tribunal framework by consolidating over a decade of disparate orders and establishing specialized sub-divisions for leasing and employment disputes.
Rules of Court Order No. 6 of 2017 — The formal establishment of the Technology and Construction Division (17 September 2017)
The order serves as the foundational instrument for the creation of a specialized judicial track within the DIFC Court system. By issuing this administrative directive, the Chief Justice sought to streamline the adjudication of disputes that require technical expertise, moving away from the general…
DIFC COURTS RULES OF COURT ORDER NO. 5 OF 2017 — Procedural overhaul of the appellate framework (25 May 2017)
The order was issued to resolve procedural ambiguities and modernize the appellate framework by introducing a new set of rules known as "Amended Part 44." This administrative action was necessitated by the need to clarify the transition between previous procedural requirements and the updated…
DIFC COURTS RULES OF COURT ORDER NO. 4 OF 2017 — Revocation of Part 44 Amendments (03 May 2017)
The issuance of this order was a direct administrative response to the unintended consequences or policy shifts introduced by the short-lived Rules of Court Order No. 2 of 2017. By revoking the prior order, the Chief Justice sought to maintain procedural stability within the DIFC Courts by…