This judgment addresses the evidentiary threshold for enforcing "unpaid leave" agreements in the DIFC, specifically where forensic analysis reveals the tampering of contractual annexes.
What was the specific monetary dispute between Landry and Larg Beauty Centre regarding unpaid salaries and unauthorised deductions?
The dispute centered on a claim for AED 205,866, which the Claimant, Landry, asserted was owed by her former employer, Larg Beauty Centre LLC. The core of the conflict involved unpaid salary arrears from December 2019 through May 2020, alongside claims for the refund of alleged unauthorised deductions—specifically health insurance premiums and utility costs for accommodation—and end-of-service benefits.
The Claimant’s position was defined by her assertion that she had not resigned nor been terminated, but was effectively forced out of her role. As noted in the court records:
The Claimant argues that the Defendant failed to pay her salaries from November 2019 to 2 May 2020 in the sum of AED 108,647 (as described in paragraph 10).
The Defendant countered these figures by providing evidence of partial payments and cash advances, while simultaneously relying on a contested "Additional Temporary Annex" to justify withholding salary for the period of April to May 2020, claiming the Claimant had voluntarily entered into an unpaid leave agreement. The resolution of this financial dispute hinged entirely on the validity of the underlying employment documentation. [Source: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/small-claims-tribunal/landry-v-larg-beauty-centre-llc-2020-difc-sct-164]
Which judge presided over the SCT hearing for Landry v Larg Beauty Centre and when was the judgment issued?
The matter was heard before SCT Judge Nassir Al Nasser in the Small Claims Tribunal of the DIFC Courts. Following a hearing held on 15 June 2020 and the receipt of further submissions on 15 July 2020, Judge Al Nasser issued the final judgment on 28 July 2020.
What were the conflicting legal arguments advanced by Landry and Larg Beauty Centre regarding the validity of the employment contracts?
The Claimant argued that the Defendant’s reliance on the "Additional Temporary Annex" was fraudulent, asserting that she never signed the document presented to the court. She maintained that her salary should have remained at the original rate stipulated in the 2018 contract. Conversely, the Defendant argued that the parties had entered into a new agreement in April 2020, which significantly reduced the Claimant's remuneration.
The Defendant’s position was explicitly stated as follows:
The Defendant also alleges that on 16 April 2020, the parties signed a new employment contract whereby the Claimant’s salary reduced from AED 25,000 to AED 12,500 (basic salary AED 5,000 and other allowances AED 7,500).
This reduction formed the basis of the Defendant's calculation for the Claimant's entitlements, which they argued were significantly lower than the amount claimed. The Defendant further contended that the Claimant was not entitled to any salary for the period of April to May 2020 due to the aforementioned unpaid leave agreement.
What was the primary legal question the SCT had to resolve regarding the forensic integrity of the "Additional Temporary Annex"?
The Court was tasked with determining the authenticity of the "Additional Temporary Annex" to decide whether the Claimant had legally consented to unpaid leave. The doctrinal issue was whether a document containing a genuine signature could be deemed invalid if forensic evidence suggested that the document itself had been tampered with or reconstructed. The Court had to decide if the Defendant could rely on a document where the signature was authentic but the content was not necessarily agreed upon by the Claimant.
How did Judge Nassir Al Nasser apply the forensic report to the Claimant’s salary calculations?
Upon the Claimant’s allegation of forgery, Judge Al Nasser directed the document to the Dubai Police Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology. The resulting report confirmed that while the signature was genuine, the document had been manipulated. Consequently, the Court disregarded the "unpaid leave" status the Defendant sought to impose.
The Court’s reasoning for the salary calculation was bifurcated based on the timeline of the employment contracts:
The Claimant’s salary from 1 April to 15 April 2020 shall be calculated as per the Employment Contract dated 1 November 2018 which reflects the monthly salary of AED 25,000.
However, for the period from 16 April to 6 May 2020, the Claimant’s salary shall be calculated as per the Amended Employment Contract which states the Claimant’s monthly salary to be in the sum of AED 12,500.
By splitting the calculation, the Judge ensured that the Claimant was compensated at the higher rate until the date of the validly amended contract, while acknowledging the lower rate for the final period of employment.
Which specific provisions of the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 were applied to determine the Claimant's notice period and gratuity?
The Court relied on the DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 to govern the termination of the relationship and the calculation of end-of-service benefits. Specifically, the Court referenced Article 62(2)(b) regarding the notice period requirements. Regarding the gratuity, the Court calculated the entitlement based on the Claimant’s tenure and final basic salary:
The Claimant worked for 1 year and 6 months, from 1 November 2018 to 6 May 2020, and her last basic salary was in the sum of AED 5,000.
The Court also addressed the Defendant's claim regarding leave in lieu:
The Defendant alleges that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of AED 7,010 in lieu of leave from 1 November 2018 to 24 March 2020.
These statutory applications provided the framework for the final award, ensuring that the gratuity and notice pay were calculated in strict accordance with the DIFC legislative requirements, regardless of the Defendant's attempts to bypass these through the tampered annex.
How did the Court address the Defendant's claims regarding the Claimant's leave entitlements?
The Court scrutinized the Defendant's assertion that the Claimant was entitled to a specific sum in lieu of leave. By reviewing the employment history and the duration of service, the Court determined the correct gratuity and leave payouts. The Court rejected the Defendant's attempt to use the "Additional Temporary Annex" to offset these amounts, effectively neutralizing the Defendant's reliance on the forged document for the calculation of leave and salary arrears.
What was the final disposition and monetary relief awarded to the Claimant in Landry v Larg Beauty Centre?
The Court allowed the claim in part. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant a total sum of AED 90,768.08. Additionally, the Defendant was ordered to reimburse the Claimant for court fees in the amount of AED 1,815.36. The Court also imposed a condition regarding the notice period:
I find that the Claimant shall serve her notice period of 1 month as per Article 62(2)(b) of the DIFC Employment Law or shall pay the Defendant the notice period of 1 month in the sum of AED 12,500.
This order balanced the Claimant’s entitlement to unpaid salary with the statutory obligation to provide notice upon resignation.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for DIFC employment practitioners regarding document integrity?
This case serves as a critical warning to employers regarding the evidentiary standards required for employment documentation. The use of forensic analysis by the SCT demonstrates that the Court will not hesitate to verify the integrity of documents when allegations of forgery or tampering are raised. Practitioners must ensure that all annexes and amendments are executed in a transparent manner and that the entire document—not just the signature page—is verifiable. Employers who rely on "temporary annexes" to modify terms during economic downturns or operational changes must be prepared to prove the authenticity of the entire instrument. Failure to do so may result in the Court disregarding the document entirely and reverting to previous, more favorable terms for the employee.
Where can I read the full judgment in Landry v Larg Beauty Centre [2020] DIFC SCT 164?
The full judgment can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/small-claims-tribunal/landry-v-larg-beauty-centre-llc-2020-difc-sct-164. The document is also available via the following CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/small-claims-tribunal/DIFC_SCT-164-2020_20200728.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 62(2)(b))