The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the calculation of statutory employment entitlements in the absence of employer participation, while reaffirming the exclusion of unfair dismissal claims under DIFC law.
How did the Small Claims Tribunal quantify the AED 52,000 claim filed by Milkig against Murabop in SCT 211/2023?
The dispute originated from the termination of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant, a company registered in the DIFC. The Claimant, who commenced his role on 26 May 2022 and concluded on 5 June 2023, sought a total of AED 52,000 covering unpaid salary, annual leave, airfare, gratuity, and compensation for unfair dismissal. The Defendant failed to participate in the proceedings, despite being served, leading to a determination based on the evidence provided by the Claimant.
On 5 June 2023, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking various employment claims in the sum of AED 52,000.
The Court scrutinized the salary claim, noting that while the Claimant sought 13 months of remuneration, the actual tenure amounted to 12 months and 9 days. Consequently, the Court adjusted the salary award to AED 36,887.67. The remaining components of the claim were assessed against the statutory requirements of the DIFC Employment Law, resulting in a total award of AED 44,038.22. Further details regarding the claim can be found at the official DIFC Courts judgment page.
Which judge presided over the hearing of Milkig v Murabop in the DIFC Small Claims Tribunal?
The matter was heard before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser in the Small Claims Tribunal of the DIFC Courts. Following a previous default order that was set aside, the final hearing took place on 20 November 2023, with the judgment issued on 28 November 2023.
What specific legal arguments did Milkig advance regarding his employment termination and salary arrears?
The Claimant argued that he was entitled to a comprehensive package totaling AED 52,000. His primary contention was that he had performed 13 months of service, justifying a salary claim of AED 39,000. Additionally, he sought specific payments for accrued but untaken annual leave, an air ticket to his home country, and a gratuity payment. Notably, the Claimant included a claim for two months’ salary, amounting to AED 6,000, specifically framed as compensation for unfair dismissal. The Defendant, Murabop, failed to submit a defense or attend the hearing, leaving the Claimant’s arguments largely uncontested regarding the quantum of the financial claims.
Did the SCT have the jurisdiction to award damages for unfair dismissal under the DIFC Employment Law?
The central legal question was whether the Claimant could recover damages for "unfair dismissal" within the DIFC legal framework. While the Claimant sought AED 6,000 for this head of claim, the Court had to determine if such a cause of action exists under the applicable legislation. The Court addressed this by examining whether the DIFC Employment Law recognizes the concept of unfair or arbitrary dismissal, a recurring issue in DIFC employment litigation.
How did H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser apply the principle of arbitrary dismissal to the Claimant’s request for compensation?
The Court relied on established judicial precedent to dismiss the claim for unfair dismissal. Despite the Claimant's request for two months' salary as compensation for the loss of his job, the Court held that the law does not provide a remedy for such a claim.
I am of the view that there is no principle of arbitrary dismissal in the DIFC.
The reasoning followed a strict interpretation of the DIFC Employment Law, which does not contain provisions for "unfair" or "arbitrary" dismissal. By citing consistent past rulings, the Court determined that the Claimant was not entitled to the additional AED 6,000 sought for the termination itself, effectively limiting the award to the statutory entitlements accrued during the period of employment.
Which sections of the DIFC Employment Law were applied to calculate the Claimant’s annual leave and salary entitlements?
The Court applied Article 16(c) and (e) of the DIFC Employment Law (No. 4 of 2021) to determine the employer’s obligation to maintain payroll records, which served as the basis for calculating the salary arrears. For the annual leave claim, the Court referenced Article 16(1)(g) and Article 28(1) of the same law.
The Claimant is seeking payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave in the sum of AED 3,000 and payment of a flight ticket in the sum of AED 2,000.
The Court utilized the formula for daily wage calculation as prescribed by the statute:
The Claimant’s daily wage is calculated as follows: AED 3,000 x 12 months/260 days = AED 138.46 per day x 30 days of annual leave accrued but untaken 1 year = AED 4,153.80
The Court ultimately awarded the AED 3,000 requested by the Claimant, as it was lower than the calculated statutory entitlement.
How did the Court utilize previous DIFC case law to reject the claim for unfair dismissal?
The Court relied on a line of established authorities to confirm that the concept of unfair dismissal is not recognized in the DIFC. Specifically, the Court referenced Rasmala Investments Ltd v Rana Banal & others [2009] DIFC CFI 006, Hana Al Herz v DIFCA [2012] DIFC CFI 011, and Marwan Lutfi v DIFCA [2012] CFI 003. These cases were used to demonstrate that the judiciary has consistently maintained that there is no principle of arbitrary dismissal within the DIFC jurisdiction. By applying these precedents, the Court ensured consistency in its ruling, denying the Claimant’s request for compensation related to the manner of his dismissal.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief granted to the Claimant?
The Court allowed the claim in part, rejecting the unfair dismissal component but granting the salary, annual leave, and air ticket claims.
I find that the Claimant is entitled to AED 4,153.80 for the annual leave accrued but untaken for 1 year.
The Claimant also claimed payment in lieu of an air ticket to his home country in the sum of AED 2,000.
Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 2,000 in lieu of being provided with an air ticket.
The Defendant was ordered to pay a total sum of AED 44,038.22. Additionally, the Court ordered the Defendant to cancel the Claimant’s employment visa immediately and to pay the Court fee of AED 880.76.
In the absence of any defence and in accordance with RDC 53.61, I shall award the Claimant his claim.
What are the practical implications for litigants seeking to claim unfair dismissal in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder to practitioners that claims for "unfair" or "arbitrary" dismissal are fundamentally incompatible with the current DIFC Employment Law. Litigants should focus their claims on specific statutory entitlements—such as unpaid salary, gratuity, and accrued leave—rather than seeking damages for the termination itself. The case also highlights the importance of the Defendant’s participation; the Court’s reliance on RDC 53.61 underscores that in the absence of a defense, the Court will proceed to calculate awards based on the evidence provided by the Claimant, provided those claims align with the statutory framework.
Where can I read the full judgment in Milkig v Murabop [2023] DIFC SCT 211?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/small-claims-tribunal/milkig-v-murabop-2023-difc-sct-211. The text is also accessible via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/small-claims-tribunal/DIFC_SCT-211-2023_20231128.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Rasmala Investments Ltd v Rana Banal & others | [2009] DIFC CFI 006 | To confirm no principle of unfair dismissal exists in the DIFC |
| Hana Al Herz v DIFCA | [2012] DIFC CFI 011 | To confirm no principle of arbitrary dismissal exists in the DIFC |
| Marwan Lutfi v DIFCA | [2012] CFI 003 | To confirm no principle of arbitrary dismissal exists in the DIFC |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021 (Employment Law Amendment Law)
- RDC 53.61 (Rules of the DIFC Courts)