LITT
Try LITT free
MATIAS v MYA [2021] DIFC SCT 340 — Breach of tenancy contract and assessment of damages (28 January 2022)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of contractual penalty clauses and the calculation of damages for landlord-led termination of a tenancy agreement.
INKIE v IVINK INVESTMENT LIMITED [2018] DIFC SCT 340 — Small Claims Tribunal ruling on security deposit deductions (24 December 2018)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the evidentiary weight of unilateral property inspections and the threshold for 'wear and tear' regarding functional appliances in DIFC tenancy disputes.
MERTINA v MIFUP [2023] DIFC SCT 339 — Proactive judicial management of misjoined parties (29 November 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal demonstrates its commitment to procedural efficiency by exercising its own-initiative powers to rectify party misjoinder in a dispute involving a self-represented litigant.
Maya v Micah [2021] DIFC SCT 338 — jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Tribunal (01 February 2022)
The litigation arose from a commercial disagreement concerning unpaid sums allegedly owed under a purchase order dated 31 December 2020. The Claimant, a Sharjah-based entity, sought to recover AED 239,454 from two Dubai-based companies, Micah and Malachi.
IZYK v INEKA [2018] DIFC SCT 338 — Exclusive jurisdiction over DIFC real property (27 November 2018)
The dispute arose from a residential tenancy agreement concerning property located within the DIFC. The Claimants, Izyk and Izzie, initiated proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) seeking damages for breach of contract and late payment fees totaling AED 106,220.
LUFATH v LICT [2022] DIFC SCT 337 — Mandatory employment obligations and resignation for cause (18 October 2022)
The dispute originated from the Claimant’s resignation as Managing Director of Lict, a DIFC-registered entity, following a ten-month tenure. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant’s failure to provide a written employment contract, a DIFC-sponsored visa, and mandatory health insurance constituted…
MAITHALI v MITHUN [2020] DIFC SCT 337 — Res judicata and abuse of process in the Small Claims Tribunal (22 December 2020)
The dispute originated from a commercial agreement for the provision and installation of sound equipment at a restaurant venue. The Claimant, Maithali, sought to recover a significant deposit previously paid to the Defendant, Mithun, for services that were ultimately stalled due to operational…
HARIPA v HARPITH FZ [2017] DIFC SCT 337 — Binding effect of informal commission confirmations (07 February 2018)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s entitlement to commission payments for the 2017 financial year despite her failure to meet the specific sales targets outlined in her employment contract.
MARIF v METHUR [2023] DIFC SCT 335 — Jurisdictional boundaries for Part 9 Employment Law claims (28 October 2023)
The dispute arose from an employment relationship between the Claimant, Marif, and his former employer, Methur. The Claimant initiated proceedings seeking damages totaling AED 456,000, alleging that he had been subjected to victimisation and discrimination during his tenure.
JAYDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES v JOSI’S RESTAURANT & COFFEE SHOP [2019] DIFC SCT 335 — Tenancy arrears and third-party liability (07 February 2019)
The dispute centered on a claim for AED 240,318.22 in alleged rent arrears and VAT, arising from a three-year tenancy agreement signed on 21 January 2016. The Claimant, Jayden Financial Services, contended that the Defendant, Josi’s Restaurant & Coffee Shop, had failed to settle rent for the period…
LAKSHA v LAILESH’S RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE LLC DUBAI [2020] DIFC SCT 226 — COVID-19 emergency measures and housing allowance claims (06 September 2020)
The litigation originated from a broader employment dispute involving claims for unpaid salary, food allowance, and pending tips, totaling AED 18,000. However, the scope of the claim narrowed significantly by the time the matter reached the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT).
LONOD v LACINI [2021] DIFC SCT 225 — Employment contract validity and the doctrine of sham agreements (20 September 2021)
The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the enforceability of dual-contract arrangements, ruling that agreements executed solely for administrative visa purposes lack the requisite intent to create binding legal obligations for remuneration.
LINGAN v LAJNI [2021] DIFC SCT 222 — SCT adjudication of high-value employment entitlements (20 October 2021)
The dispute originated from the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 12 April 2021. Initially, the Claimant sought to recover a significant sum for various unpaid entitlements.
LUNE v LUTEN [2020] DIFC SCT 089 — Debt recovery and enforcement of personal loan agreements (30 April 2020)
The dispute concerned the recovery of outstanding arrears on a personal loan and a credit card facility provided by the Claimant, a financial institution, to the Defendant. The parties had entered into a formal written agreement in June 2017, which governed the terms of a significant loan and a…
HALSTON v HAZEL [2017] DIFC SCT 086 — Enforceability of mistaken figures in employment compromise agreements (18 May 2017)
The dispute centers on a Compromise Agreement dated 6 December 2016, which governed the terms of the Claimant’s exit from the Defendant’s employment due to redundancy. The agreement included a provision for the payment of pension contributions to Pension Fund International (PFI), which was…
MINALIK v MORUL [2023] DIFC SCT 072 — Procedural correction of party identity in tenancy disputes (03 March 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal exercises its proactive case management powers to rectify misidentified corporate defendants in a tenancy dispute.
MAGENTA v MAHALIA [2022] DIFC SCT 072 — Breach of lease brokerage agreement (25 April 2022)
The dispute concerned the payment of a brokerage commission following the introduction of a tenant to the Defendant, Mahalia, by the Claimant, Magenta. The parties had entered into a lease brokerage agreement on 19 September 2021, which stipulated that the owner would pay a commission equivalent to…
Igraine v Ikale Asset Management [2018] DIFC SCT 069 — Strict liability for late wage payments (19 March 2018)
The Small Claims Tribunal confirms that Article 18(2) of the DIFC Employment Law imposes a mandatory penalty for late payments, irrespective of an employer's lack of bad faith or technical banking difficulties.
NAVEEN v NED [2024] DIFC SCT 068 — Employment claim for unpaid salary and benefits (11 July 2024)
The dispute centered on the Claimant’s resignation from his position as Director at the Defendant company, Ned, following a failure by the employer to meet contractual financial obligations.
NAVEEN v NED [2024] DIFC SCT 068 — Employment jurisdiction and the inefficacy of exclusionary forum clauses (20 March 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that DIFC-registered entities cannot contractually oust the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts in employment disputes where the underlying contract is performed within the Centre.
LALA v LANKEN [2020] DIFC SCT 067 — jurisdictional bifurcation of multi-product financial claims (21 May 2020)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of opt-in jurisdiction when a single application form covers distinct financial products, resulting in a partial dismissal of claims.
NATHAN v NAOMI [2024] SCT 065 — Unauthorized salary deductions and prohibited visa cost recoupment (23 April 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the mandatory nature of Article 57 of the DIFC Employment Law, ruling that employers cannot contractually shift visa costs to employees regardless of prior agreements.
VEGIE BAR v EMIRATES NATIONAL BANK OF DUBAI PROPERTIES [2020] DIFC CA 001 — Torrens Title and the enforceability of unregistered leases (15 October 2020)
The litigation arose from a failed 10-year lease agreement for Units R17A and R17B in Limestone House, DIFC. Vegie Bar LLC (VB) entered into a lease with the developer, Union Properties PJSC (UP), in 2011.
SAIF SAEED SULAIMAN MOHAMMAD AL MAZROUEI v BANKMED [2019] DIFC CA 011 — Appeal against immediate judgment for alleged forgery (02 January 2020)
The dispute arose from a default on a USD 15,000,000 facility agreement granted by the Respondent, Bankmed, to Fast Telecom General Trading LLC. Following the borrower's default, the bank sought to enforce personal guarantees against several defendants, including the Appellant, Saif Saeed Sulaiman…