LITT
Try LITT free
NURIM v NISRA [2023] DIFC SCT 407 — Unpaid salary and termination penalty enforcement (22 December 2023)
The dispute concerns the failure of the Defendant, Nisra, to remunerate the Claimant, Nurim, for his final period of service. The Claimant, who began his tenure on 17 January 2023, sought recovery of unpaid wages covering August 2023 and the final 21 days of September 2023.
Nivan v Nysi [2023] DIFC SCT 406 — Default judgment for unpaid salary and qualifying scheme contributions (10 January 2024)
The dispute originated from an employment relationship governed by an Offer Letter dated 1 July 2022. The Claimant, Nivan, initiated proceedings against his former employer, Nysi, seeking recovery of outstanding remuneration and end-of-service entitlements.
LIV v LAVA [2022] DIFC SCT 406 — Employment disputes and the misuse of absconding procedures (30 December 2022)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of employer authority regarding visa cancellation and the prohibition of using immigration-based absconding procedures to resolve internal employment contract disputes.
OLLA v OLGA [2025] DIFC SCT 405 — Refusal of permission to appeal in employment termination dispute (26 November 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the finality of Small Claims Tribunal findings regarding termination for cause, emphasizing the high threshold for appellate intervention in factual determinations.
NIRAN v NYSA [2023] DIFC SCT 403 — Visa cancellation and the strict application of employment limitation periods (27 December 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the jurisdictional and temporal boundaries for employment-related counterclaims, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the six-month limitation period under DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021.
Letier v Lutiner [2020] DIFC SCT 402 — Jurisdiction and the limits of digital opt-in clauses (16 March 2021)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that a mere hyperlink to terms and conditions in a welcome kit fails to establish a valid written agreement to submit to DIFC Court jurisdiction.
NAWAILAH v NAZAAHA [2024] DIFC SCT 400 — Employer’s obligation to cancel visa post-termination (29 October 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that an employer’s statutory duty to cancel an employee’s visa remains absolute, regardless of pending regulatory penalties or collateral commercial disputes.
Mahut v Mishti [2023] DIFC SCT 399 — jurisdictional dismissal for lack of nexus and written opt-in (16 November 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies that the absence of a DIFC nexus or a formal written opt-in agreement renders a claim ineligible for adjudication, regardless of the defendant's failure to object.
Nell v Nero [2023] DIFC SCT 397 — Enforcement of unpaid food supply invoices following admission of liability (16 January 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms its jurisdiction over a DIFC Establishment and enters judgment for a claimant following the defendant's failure to comply with court-ordered financial reporting.
Moosub v Mior [2023] DIFC SCT 396 — Validity of non-exclusive opt-in clauses (27 November 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal affirms that non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses are valid under the Judicial Authority Law, rejecting the necessity for forum exclusivity in opt-in agreements.
MINDALI v MEUN [2020] DIFC SCT 396 — SCT jurisdiction over consumer credit contracts (19 January 2021)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of 'opt-in' jurisdiction, ruling that digital references to external terms and conditions are insufficient to establish a binding agreement to DIFC Court jurisdiction.
MAB CONSULT FZC v MABEL CONTRACTING CO LLC [2020] DIFC SCT 395 — dismissal of duplicate claim on res judicata grounds (14 January 2021)
The claimant, Mab Consult FZC, initiated proceedings in November 2020 seeking recovery of funds allegedly owed under a Professional Services Proposal dated 18 July 2017. The dispute centered on a principal debt and accumulated interest that the claimant argued remained outstanding.
MIXAH v MOLDAN INVESTMENTS [2020] DIFC SCT 394 — Employment commission dispute (21 January 2021)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the evidentiary burden required for employees to trigger performance-based commission clauses in DIFC employment contracts.
Laurance LLC v Lazarus [2022] DIFC SCT 393 — failure to substantiate project management services (26 December 2022)
The dispute centered on a breach of contract claim initiated by Laurance LLC, a Dubai-based consultancy, against an individual client, Lazarus. The Claimant sought remuneration for project management services allegedly rendered during March and April 2022 in relation to the renovation of the…
MAKISA MANAGEMENT v MAKAN [2020] DIFC SCT 393 — Enforceability of notice periods in consultancy agreements (21 December 2020)
This Small Claims Tribunal judgment clarifies the high evidentiary threshold required for a defendant to justify the immediate termination of a consultancy agreement based on allegations of incompetence or gross negligence.
MURBAKI v MITHILA [2023] DIFC SCT 392 — Enforceability of opt-in jurisdiction clauses in small claims (14 December 2023)
The dispute arose from a contractual disagreement regarding the provision of services related to Mobile Elevated Work Platforms. Murbaki, an Abu Dhabi-based company, initiated proceedings against Mithila, a Dubai-registered entity, to recover outstanding payments.
Numair v Naufil [2024] DIFC SCT 391 — Termination of lease and refund of overpaid rent (20 November 2024)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the enforceability of fixed-term lease expiry dates within the DIFC, mandating the vacation of premises and the restitution of overpaid rent.
Niyaniya v Nubal [2023] DIFC SCT 390 — Enforcement of discretionary settlement payments following DFSA investigation (22 December 2023)
The dispute centered on the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement dated 2 June 2022, which followed the termination of the Claimant’s employment as Head of Compliance. The Claimant sought to recover an "Additional Settlement Amount" and legal representation fees, alleging that the Defendant had…
MUSHIN v MUBAR [2023] DIFC SCT 388 — Dismissal of employment claim against an individual director (28 November 2023)
The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the limits of personal liability for corporate officers in employment disputes, emphasizing the necessity of naming the correct legal entity as the respondent.
MURUK v MISLI [2022] DIFC SCT 388 — Setting aside a Consent Order due to procedural confusion (30 May 2023)
The litigation concerns a financial dispute arising from an alleged loan agreement. The Claimant, an individual based in Dubai, initiated proceedings against the Defendant, a Dubai-based company, seeking recovery of funds purportedly owed under a contract executed in late 2022.
JASMINE v JABEZ [2019] DIFC SCT 388 — Jurisdictional dismissal for lack of nexus (27 January 2019)
The dispute originated from a 2015 business arrangement involving the establishment of a limited liability company. Following financial difficulties, the Defendant entered into an agreement to buy out the Claimant’s shares using a combination of cash and post-dated cheques.
OLGA v ORSOLA [2025] DIFC SCT 387 — Refusal of permission to appeal in loan agreement dispute (21 October 2025)
The litigation centers on a loan agreement dated 8 April 2023, under which the Claimant, Mr. Olga, sought the recovery of AED 284,337.80. The core of the dispute involved the Defendant’s denial of the agreement’s execution, specifically alleging that his digital signature had been fraudulently…
JABRIEL EQUIPMENT RENTAL v JARITA CONTRACTING [2019] DIFC SCT 387 — Enforcement of construction machinery hire agreements (17 February 2019)
The dispute centered on a series of 27 unpaid invoices issued by the Claimant, Jabriel Equipment Rental, to the Defendant, Jarita Contracting, for the provision of construction machinery.
NAIMA v NARCISO [2023] DIFC SCT 385 — Appeal against SCT billing dispute judgment (12 January 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the narrow scope of appellate review for Small Claims Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that factual findings regarding legal fees are not subject to re-litigation.