This judgment addresses the unlawful dismissal and victimisation of a senior pilates instructor, clarifying the protections afforded to employees who initiate legal proceedings against their employers within the DIFC.
What was the specific factual dispute between Oluremi and Omolara regarding the pilates studio employment contract and the subsequent claim for AED 88,633?
The dispute arose from the employment relationship between a senior pilates instructor and the studio owner, which deteriorated rapidly following the instructor's decision to seek legal redress for workplace harassment. The Claimant, Oluremi, was employed under a complex contract dated 26 September 2024, which included specific provisions regarding "Monthly Contracted Hours" and potential repayment of wages upon termination. Following the issuance of a written warning on 10 May 2025, the relationship collapsed, leading to the Claimant's dismissal and a subsequent legal battle over unpaid wages, notice pay, and damages for victimisation.
The core of the dispute involved the Defendant’s retaliatory actions after the Claimant initiated proceedings. As noted in the judgment:
The Claimant is a senior pilates instructor who was employed by the Defendant’s pilates studio located in the DIFC, Dubai, UAE under a contract of employment dated 26 September 2024.
The Claimant sought compensation for what she alleged was a campaign of victimisation, while the Defendant attempted to claw back alleged wage overpayments through a counterclaim. The final award of AED 88,633 reflects the Court's determination of the financial impact of the Defendant's unlawful conduct. Further details regarding the case history can be found at https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1072025-oluremi-v-omolara.
Which judge presided over the re-hearing of Oluremi v Omolara in the DIFC Court of First Instance on 12 February 2026?
The re-hearing of this matter was presided over by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC, sitting in the Court of First Instance. Following the initial judgment by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 19 September 2025, Justice Stewart granted permission to appeal on 7 November 2025 and subsequently conducted the re-hearing on 12 February 2026, resulting in the final judgment issued on 3 March 2026.
What legal arguments did the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative, Ms Okeli, advance regarding the validity of the termination and the alleged wage overpayments?
The Claimant, representing herself, argued that her placement on "administrative leave without pay" and her subsequent dismissal were direct retaliatory measures taken because she had exercised her right to file a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal. She contended that these actions constituted unlawful victimisation under the DIFC Employment Law.
Conversely, the Defendant, represented by Ms Okeli, maintained that the studio’s actions were reasonable and contractually justified. The Defendant argued that the Claimant had been overpaid wages based on the "Monthly Contracted Hours" stipulated in her contract and sought the return of these funds. The Defendant’s position was that the termination was a legitimate exercise of its rights under the employment agreement, rather than a response to the Claimant’s protected act of filing a lawsuit.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the intersection of Article 60 of the DIFC Employment Law and the employer's right to place staff on administrative leave?
The Court was required to determine whether the Defendant’s conduct—specifically the placement of the Claimant on "administrative leave without pay" followed by immediate termination—met the threshold for "victimisation" under Article 60 of the DIFC Employment Law. The doctrinal challenge lay in distinguishing between legitimate management of an employee during a dispute and the prohibited act of subjecting an employee to a "detriment" because they had performed a "protected act," namely, the initiation of legal proceedings. The Court had to decide if the timing and nature of the administrative leave were causally linked to the Claimant’s filing of the claim on 12 May 2025.
How did Justice Roger Stewart KC apply the test for victimisation to the facts surrounding the Claimant's dismissal on 20 May 2025?
Justice Stewart KC evaluated the sequence of events, noting the proximity between the filing of the claim and the punitive actions taken by the Defendant. The Court found that the placement of the Claimant on unpaid leave and her subsequent dismissal were not independent management decisions but were instead triggered by the Claimant’s legal challenge.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the causal link between the protected act and the detriment suffered:
It is declared that the Defendant unlawfully victimised the Claimant contrary to the provisions of Article 60 of the DIFC Employment Law by subjecting her to a detriment as a result of the doing of a protected act, namely the issue of proceedings, by placing her on “administrative leave” on 15 May 2025 and dismissing her without notice on 20 May 2025
By establishing this causal connection, the Court concluded that the dismissal was not only a breach of contract but also a violation of the statutory protections against victimisation, thereby invalidating the Defendant’s justification for the termination.
Which specific sections of the DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 were central to the Court’s determination of the Claimant’s rights and the Defendant’s liabilities?
The Court relied heavily on Article 60 of the DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019, which prohibits victimisation. Additionally, the Court referenced Article 3, Article 15, Article 16, Article 20, Article 35, and Article 58 to define the scope of the employment relationship, the requirements for lawful termination, and the calculation of compensation. These provisions collectively provided the framework for assessing whether the Defendant’s failure to pay notice and the subsequent dismissal were compliant with DIFC standards.
How did the Court address the Defendant’s Counterclaim regarding alleged wage overpayments in light of the contractual provisions?
The Defendant’s Counterclaim, which sought the return of sums allegedly overpaid to the Claimant, was dismissed by the Court. The Court examined the contract’s provisions regarding "Monthly Contracted Hours" and "Carry Forward Hours" but found that the Defendant had failed to substantiate its claim for recovery. The Court essentially rejected the Defendant’s interpretation of the wage structure, finding that the Claimant was entitled to the wages she had received, and further awarded her additional amounts for underpayment of wages and housing allowance prior to her dismissal.
What was the final disposition of the case, and how did the Court calculate the total compensation of AED 88,633?
The Court set aside the previous judgment, dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim, and ruled in favor of the Claimant. The total compensation of AED 88,633 was calculated based on three distinct components:
1. AED 5,633 for underpayment of wages and housing allowance prior to 20 May 2025.
2. AED 21,000 for payment in lieu of notice (comprising AED 17,000 in salary and AED 4,000 in housing allowance).
3. AED 62,000 as compensation for unlawful victimisation.
The Court also ordered the Defendant to pay all filing fees and charges incurred by the Claimant during the proceedings.
What are the wider implications of this judgment for employers and employees regarding the use of "administrative leave" during active litigation?
This judgment serves as a stern warning to employers that the use of "administrative leave" or similar measures against an employee who has initiated legal proceedings will be heavily scrutinized by the DIFC Courts. It reinforces the principle that employees are protected from retaliation for exercising their right to seek justice. Employers must be aware that any detriment imposed following a "protected act" carries a high risk of being classified as unlawful victimisation under Article 60. Practitioners should advise clients that internal disciplinary actions taken in the shadow of active litigation must be demonstrably independent of the legal dispute to avoid significant financial liability.
Where can I read the full judgment in Oluremi v Omolara [2026] DIFC CFI 107?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-1072025-oluremi-v-omolara. The text is also available via the CDN at https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-107-2025_20260303.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 3
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 15
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 16
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 20
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 35
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 58
- DIFC Employment Law No 2 of 2019 Article 60