The Small Claims Tribunal clarifies the jurisdictional and evidentiary boundaries of internship arrangements within the DIFC, ruling that statutory employment protections do not extend to interns and that claims for remote work compensation require robust proof of performance.
What was the specific monetary value and factual basis of the claim brought by Lehani against Lufit in SCT 379/2022?
The dispute centered on an unpaid internship agreement between the Claimant, Lehani, and the Defendant, Lufit. The Claimant alleged that he had completed an internship period from 12 May 2022 to 26 August 2022, serving as a Business Development Representative. Despite the absence of a countersigned offer letter, the Claimant asserted that he performed his duties throughout the entire duration, including a period of remote work following his physical departure from the office on 29 July 2022.
The Claimant sought judicial intervention to recover unpaid wages and performance-based incentives. As noted in the court record:
The Claimant, in filing his claim, seeks payment in the amount of AED 8,726 for his outstanding salaries (from 12 May 2022 to 26 August 2022) in addition to compensation in the amount of AED 60.
The Defendant contested the claim, arguing that the internship was effectively terminated on 29 July 2022 due to performance issues and that the Claimant was not entitled to any remuneration for the subsequent period, during which he claimed to be working remotely.
Which judge presided over the Small Claims Tribunal hearing in Lehani v Lufit, and when was the judgment issued?
The matter was heard before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi. Following a consultation process that failed to yield a settlement, the formal hearing took place on 14 November 2022. Judge AlShehhi subsequently issued the final judgment on 23 November 2022, determining the extent of the Defendant’s liability regarding the outstanding salary and compensation claims.
What were the primary legal arguments advanced by Lehani and Lufit regarding the internship agreement?
The Claimant argued that he had fulfilled his obligations under the unsigned Offer Letter dated 20 April 2022, asserting that he continued to work remotely between 29 July 2022 and 26 August 2022 to complete a program mandated by the Defendant. He contended that the Defendant’s failure to provide an evaluation report and salary was a breach of the agreed-upon terms.
Conversely, the Defendant argued that the internship was terminated on 29 July 2022, the date on which the company retrieved the Claimant’s equipment. The Defendant’s representative maintained that the Claimant’s performance had been unsatisfactory and that there was no evidence of work performed after the termination date. Furthermore, the Defendant cited administrative difficulties with the Claimant’s university regarding the specific job title as the reason for the failure to countersign the Offer Letter, effectively distancing the company from the contractual obligations claimed by the intern.
Did the DIFC Employment Law apply to the internship arrangement in Lehani v Lufit?
The court was required to determine whether the relationship between the parties fell under the scope of the Employment Law DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019. The doctrinal issue was whether an internship, characterized by educational requirements and a lack of a formal, signed employment contract, constitutes an "employment" relationship subject to the statutory protections and entitlements provided under DIFC law. The court had to decide if the absence of a signed contract and the nature of the internship precluded the application of the Employment Law, thereby limiting the Claimant's ability to claim statutory benefits.
How did Judge Maitha AlShehhi apply the evidentiary test to the Claimant’s request for remote work salary?
Judge AlShehhi adopted a strict evidentiary approach regarding the period following the Claimant's physical departure from the office. While the court acknowledged the Claimant's assertion that he continued to work remotely, it found that the Claimant failed to substantiate this claim with admissible evidence. The court noted that the Defendant had taken active steps to terminate the relationship on 29 July 2022.
Regarding the evidence provided, the court held:
I am of the view that the Claimant is not entitled to his salary for the period he worked remotely for the lack of admissible evidence to demonstrate the Claimant’s actual attendance to this.
The judge reasoned that because the Defendant had confiscated the Claimant’s access to systems and equipment on 29 July 2022, the burden of proof shifted to the Claimant to demonstrate that he had, in fact, performed work for the company during the subsequent month. Absent such proof, the court limited the award to the period ending on 29 July 2022.
Which specific provisions of the Employment Law DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019 were considered by the court?
The court addressed the scope of the Employment Law DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019. The primary holding was that the statute does not extend its protections to internships. The court explicitly stated:
the Employment Law DIFC Law No.2 of 2019 (the “Employment Law”) does not cover internships in the DIFC.
This determination meant that the Claimant could not rely on the statutory provisions of the Employment Law to enforce the terms of the Offer Letter. Instead, the court treated the matter as a contractual dispute based on the Offer Letter itself, rather than a claim arising from statutory employment rights.
How did the court handle the Claimant’s request for AED 60 in compensation?
Despite the limitations regarding the Employment Law, the court addressed the specific claim for compensation related to meetings secured by the Claimant. Because the Defendant did not contest this specific portion of the claim, the court found it appropriate to grant the relief requested. As stated in the judgment:
As to the Claimant’s claim for AED 60 compensation, as the Defendant has not objected to this, I am satisfied to award this in favour of the Claimant.
This demonstrates the court’s willingness to enforce specific, uncontested contractual terms even where the broader statutory framework of the Employment Law is found inapplicable to the relationship.
What was the final disposition and the specific monetary relief ordered by the SCT?
The court allowed the claim in part, ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant for the period of his physical internship up to the date of termination. The court calculated the outstanding amount based on the period ending 29 July 2022. The final order was as follows:
The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 6,226.66 representing the outstanding amounts owed to the Claimant.
Additionally, the court ordered the Defendant to pay the DIFC Courts filing fee of AED 367.25, while ruling that each party must bear their own legal costs. The court’s order was summarized as:
In light of the abovementioned, I hereby order that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 6,226.66.
What are the wider implications for DIFC practitioners regarding internship disputes?
This case serves as a critical reminder that internship arrangements in the DIFC are not automatically governed by the Employment Law DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019. Practitioners must ensure that internship agreements are clearly drafted as standalone contracts, as they may fall outside the statutory protections afforded to employees. Furthermore, the case highlights the necessity of maintaining clear, contemporaneous evidence of work performance, particularly in remote work scenarios. Litigants must anticipate that the SCT will require concrete proof of work performed if a respondent disputes the continuation of a contract, especially where access to company systems has been revoked.
Where can I read the full judgment in Lehani v Lufit [2022] DIFC SCT 379?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/small-claims-tribunal/lehani-v-lufit-2022-difc-sct-379
Legislation referenced:
- Employment Law DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019