What were the specific monetary claims and contractual disputes underlying Mikha v Merat [2023] DIFC SCT 093?
The dispute centers on a consultancy relationship that soured shortly after its inception. The Claimant, Mikha, was engaged to provide design advisory services to the Defendant, Merat, on an exclusive basis. The financial terms of the engagement were set at a monthly fee of USD 2,000. Following the termination of this arrangement, the Claimant sought legal recourse through the DIFC Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) to recover alleged outstanding dues.
As noted in the court record:
On 24 February 2023, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment of USD 2,890 for unpaid dues for 44 days, and unquantified sums to be paid for causing mental anxiety and termination of the Contract.
The core of the dispute involves the Claimant’s assertion that he performed 44 days of work for which he remained uncompensated, contrasted against the Defendant’s position that the Claimant failed to deliver any substantive work product during the engagement period.
Which judge presided over the SCT hearing in Mikha v Merat and when was the final judgment issued?
The matter was presided over by H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri. The hearing took place on 30 May 2023, following an unsuccessful consultation session held on 22 May 2023 before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo. The final judgment, which dismissed the Claimant’s claims in their entirety, was formally issued by the SCT on 23 June 2023.
How did the parties frame their respective positions regarding the termination of the Consultancy Contract?
The Claimant argued that his termination on 31 January 2023 was without cause and that he was entitled to payment for 44 days of work performed. He contended that he never received a formal warning letter regarding his performance, nor did he receive feedback from the Defendant concerning the quality of his work. He further suggested that the initial meeting on 20 December 2022 was intended merely to establish an action plan rather than to mandate the delivery of ten websites within a single month.
Conversely, the Defendant argued that the Claimant failed to meet his contractual obligations as a web consultant. The Defendant asserted that despite providing a design brief and clear project requirements in December 2022, the Claimant failed to deliver any preliminary baseline designs. The Defendant submitted evidence, including email correspondence, demonstrating the Claimant’s failure to attend mandatory daily remote meetings and his inability to produce the agreed-upon deliverables. Consequently, the Defendant maintained that the termination was justified due to non-performance.
What was the primary legal question the SCT had to resolve regarding the Claimant’s entitlement to fees?
The primary legal question before the SCT was whether the Claimant had sufficiently substantiated his claim for remuneration by providing evidence of services rendered. The Court had to determine if the Claimant had fulfilled his contractual obligations under the Consultancy Contract to a degree that entitled him to payment for the 44-day period, or if the Defendant’s termination for non-performance was contractually valid, thereby extinguishing the Claimant’s right to further payment.
How did H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri apply the evidentiary standard to the Claimant’s assertions of work performance?
Justice Al Mheiri’s reasoning focused on the stark absence of tangible work product. While the Claimant alleged that he had performed work, the Defendant provided specific evidence—including emails and records of missed meetings—to demonstrate that the Claimant had failed to deliver the required design outputs. The Court noted that despite the Defendant’s attempts to follow up on outstanding deliverables, the Claimant consistently provided excuses rather than results.
The Court’s reasoning is summarized by the following finding:
In light of the above, I find that the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s Consultancy Contract in accordance with terms agreed by the parties, and due to the Claimant’s non-performance, he is not ent
The Judge concluded that the Claimant failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that he had performed the services for which he sought payment. Consequently, the Court found no basis to award the claimed USD 2,890.
Which specific contractual provisions and jurisdictional authorities were cited in the judgment?
The judgment confirms the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts based on the governing law clause within the Consultancy Contract. Specifically, the Court referenced Clause 14.1 of the Consultancy Contract, which stipulates that any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with the agreement, including non-contractual disputes, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the DIFC. The SCT’s authority to hear the matter was further derived from the standard procedural rules governing the Small Claims Tribunal, which mandate that disputes failing to reach a settlement during the consultation stage be referred to an SCT Judge for a formal hearing and determination.
How did the Court utilize the factual history of the engagement in its final determination?
The Court relied heavily on the timeline of the engagement to assess the validity of the non-performance claim. The Court highlighted that the Claimant was provided with a design brief in December 2022, yet failed to produce the necessary preliminary designs. As noted in the record:
Whilst the brief was given for two projects for the website to be redesigned in the week of 20 December 2022, the Defendant did not receive any preliminary baseline design throughout the duration of the Claimant’s work.
By contrasting the Claimant’s claims of work performed against the Defendant’s documented evidence of non-delivery and missed meetings, the Court established that the Claimant had not met the burden of proof required to substantiate his claim for unpaid fees.
What was the final disposition of the claim and the Court’s order regarding costs?
The SCT dismissed the Claimant’s claims in their entirety. Regarding the financial relief sought, the Court awarded USD 0, as the Claimant failed to provide evidence of services rendered. Furthermore, the Court ordered that each party shall bear their own costs, meaning no legal or administrative costs were shifted between the parties.
What are the practical implications of this ruling for consultants operating within the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder that the SCT requires concrete evidence of deliverables to substantiate claims for unpaid consultancy fees. Consultants cannot rely on assertions of "work performed" if they cannot produce a paper trail or work product that aligns with the agreed-upon project brief. The ruling reinforces the necessity for consultants to maintain clear communication logs, document the submission of deliverables, and actively participate in scheduled meetings to avoid claims of non-performance. Future litigants must anticipate that the SCT will prioritize documented evidence over unsubstantiated claims of work effort when evaluating contractual disputes in the consultancy sector.
Where can I read the full judgment in Mikha v Merat [2023] DIFC SCT 093?
The full judgment is available on the official DIFC Courts website at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/small-claims-tribunal/mikha-v-merat-2023-disct-093. The text is also accessible via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/small-claims-tribunal/DIFC_SCT-093-2023_20230623.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | No external case law was cited in this SCT judgment. |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Courts Law
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Consultancy Contract (dated 14 December 2022)