OMAR BEN HALLAM v NATIXIS [2025] DIFC CFI 016 — Strike out of employment claims and immediate judgment on annual leave (19 September 2025)

This order clarifies the high threshold for pleading employment claims in the DIFC and confirms that employers possess broad statutory discretion to terminate without cause and mandate annual leave during garden leave.

What specific employment claims did Omar Ben Hallam bring against Natixis in CFI 016/2025?

The litigation arose from the termination of Omar Ben Hallam’s employment with Natixis, which spanned from 19 December 2021 to 24 January 2025. Following his departure, the Claimant initiated a Part 7 claim alleging that his termination was wrongful and that he had been subjected to discriminatory practices and victimisation. The dispute centered on the validity of the termination process, the alleged fabrication of documents, and the calculation of his final entitlements.

As noted in the court’s summary of the proceedings:

Following the Respondent’s Garden Leave and payment of his contractual and statutory entitlements – of which the Respondent claims are incorrect – the Respondent filed a Part 7 Claim Form dated 24 February 2025.

The Claimant sought AED 1,320,000.00 for wrongful termination and an additional AED 71,076.92 for unpaid annual leave and associated statutory penalties. He further alleged that Natixis breached express and implied terms of trust and confidence, claiming that the bank had backdated termination documents to circumvent statutory procedures. The bank, conversely, maintained that the termination was lawful and that the Claimant’s allegations regarding discrimination and victimisation were entirely unsubstantiated.

Which judge presided over the application hearing for Natixis in the DIFC Court of First Instance?

The application was heard and determined by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani. The hearing took place on 12 August 2025, following the vacation of a previously scheduled Case Management Conference. The resulting Order with Reasons was issued on 19 September 2025, granting the Defendant’s application to strike out the majority of the claims and dismissing the annual leave claim via immediate judgment.

What legal arguments did Omar Ben Hallam and Natixis advance regarding the termination process?

The Claimant argued that his termination was wrongful because Natixis failed to provide evidence justifying the dismissal and allegedly backdated documents to frame the termination as a resignation. He contended that his strong performance, evidenced by a discretionary bonus of AED 350,000 and his role as Global Coordinator on a major transaction, rendered the termination unjustified. Furthermore, he alleged that he was subjected to discriminatory remarks and harassment, and that the bank failed to provide increments despite his promotion to Head of Investment Banking (MENA).

Natixis countered that the DIFC Employment Law does not require an employer to provide "cause" for termination. The bank maintained that it acted in full compliance with Article 62 of the Employment Law and that the Claimant’s allegations of victimisation and discrimination lacked any evidentiary basis or valid legal foundation. The Defendant argued that the pleadings were deficient under RDC 17.8(1) and 17.17(1), failing to provide a concise statement of facts, and that the Claimant’s claims were fundamentally flawed as a matter of law.

What was the core doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the concept of 'wrongful termination' under DIFC Law?

The Court had to determine whether the Claimant’s assertion of "wrongful termination" constituted a viable cause of action under the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019. The central legal question was whether an employee can challenge a termination on the basis of a lack of "cause" or "justification" when the governing statute provides for termination without cause. The Court was required to assess whether the Claimant’s pleadings met the threshold for a trial or whether they should be struck out for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

How did H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the test for strike out to the Claimant's allegations?

The Court applied the principles established in DIFC Authority v Al Shaykh and Rada Trading LLC FZC v Wealth Bridge Trading regarding the threshold for strike out. The Judge found that the Claimant failed to identify the specific categories of discrimination under Article 59(1) of the Employment Law, rendering his claims legally unsustainable. Regarding the wrongful termination claim, the Court emphasized the statutory framework governing employment in the DIFC.

As the Court reasoned:

In DIFC Employment Law, there is no concept of ‘wrongful termination’, only termination with and without cause.

The Judge further noted that the Claimant’s reliance on Article 62 was misplaced, as the statute does not mandate the provision of cause for termination. The Court found that the Claimant’s failure to identify which category of discrimination was engaged meant that the claim had no potential to succeed. Consequently, the Court held that the pleadings were insufficient to proceed to trial, as they failed to articulate a valid legal basis for the relief sought.

Which specific sections of the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 were central to the Court's decision?

The Court’s decision turned on the interpretation of several key provisions of the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019. Article 62 was central to the dispute over termination, with the Court clarifying that this provision does not require an employer to provide cause for dismissal. The Court also addressed Article 59, which governs discrimination, noting that the Claimant failed to satisfy the requirements for establishing a claim under Article 59(2)(a).

Additionally, the Court relied on Article 29(2) regarding the employer’s right to manage annual leave. The Court held:

Article 29(2) of the Employment Law gives an unambiguous right to an employer to require an employee to take annual leave on certain days given that the employee has a minimum of 7 days’ notice.

The Court also referenced Articles 19 and 27 concerning the payment of end-of-service entitlements and statutory penalties, ultimately finding that the Claimant had been paid in accordance with the law.

How did the Court distinguish the Claimant's arguments regarding Article 62 of the Employment Law?

The Claimant attempted to argue that the employer failed to comply with procedural requirements under Article 62. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, noting that the Claimant’s arguments were based on a misunderstanding of the statutory text.

As the Court observed:

Article 62(3) merely permits longer noticer periods by agreement, and Article 62(4) permits payment in lieu of notice under certain circumstances. The Respondent fails to explain the Applicant’s non-compliance with Article 62(3), nor was the Respondent paid in lieu of notice.

The Court further addressed the Claimant’s attempt to invoke Article 62(3) and (4) regarding written reasons and consultation, finding that these obligations were not triggered in the manner the Claimant suggested. The Court’s analysis effectively dismantled the Claimant’s attempt to import common law concepts of "wrongful termination" into the DIFC statutory regime.

What was the final disposition of the Court regarding the claims and the associated costs?

The Court granted the Defendant’s application in its entirety. It struck out the claims for Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, Victimisation, and Breach of Terms pursuant to RDC 4.16. The Court also dismissed the Unpaid Annual Leave claim via immediate judgment under RDC 24.1. Regarding the costs of the application, the Court ordered a structured exchange of submissions.

The Court’s order regarding the next steps for costs was as follows:

The Claimant shall, within 5 working days of the filing of the Defendant’s costs submissions, file a reply thereto, such reply not exceeding 3 pages in length.

The parties were directed to file submissions based on their respective Statements of Costs, with the Defendant’s initial submission limited to three pages.

What are the wider implications of this judgment for employment litigation in the DIFC?

This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the strict pleading requirements in the DIFC Courts. Practitioners must ensure that claims are clearly categorized under the specific articles of the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019. The ruling reinforces that the DIFC Courts will not entertain claims based on common law concepts of "wrongful termination" where the statute provides a clear, alternative framework.

Furthermore, the decision clarifies the extent of employer discretion regarding garden leave and the management of annual leave. Litigants must anticipate that the Court will readily strike out claims that lack a clear statutory basis or fail to provide sufficient factual particulars, as required by RDC 17.8(1). This case underscores the necessity of robust, evidence-based pleadings at the outset of any employment dispute in the DIFC.

Where can I read the full judgment in Omar Ben Hallam v Natixis [2025] DIFC CFI 016?

The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0162025-omar-ben-hallam-v-natixis-1

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 10
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 19
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 27
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 29(2)
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 59
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 60
• DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019, Article 62
• RDC 1.6
• RDC 4.16
• RDC 17.8(1)
• RDC 24.1
• RDC 28