Claim No. SCT 037/2021
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEAIRI
BETWEEN
LASAKI
Claimant/Respondent
and
LAVESH
Defendant/Appellant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPONreviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 16 March 2021 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment of SCT Judge Maha Al Mheiri dated 9 March 2021
AND UPONreviewing the Claimant’s submissions dated 17 March 2021
AND UPONhearing the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives at a Hearing on 21 March 2021
AND UPONreviewing Rule 44.19 of the Amended Appeal Rules in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “ARDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant’s Appeal Notice be dismissed due its failure to meet the requirements of ARDC 44.19.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issued by:
Maha Al Mheiri
Court of First Instance Judge
Date of issue: 28 March 2021
Time: 11am
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Defendant in this Claim, against my judgment dated 9 March 2021 in this matter (the “Judgment”). The Appeal Notice dated 16 March 2021 sets out the Defendant’s request for an oral hearing to determine the application seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment, which was duly held before me, in the presence of the Claimant, on 21 March 2021 (the “Permission Hearing”).
2. The background of this Claim is relevantly set out in the Judgment and need not be repeated in the course of this Order.
3. In accordance with ARDC 44.19, permission to appeal may be granted in limited situations, being when there is a real prospect that the appeal would succeed, or where there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
4. In review of the Appeal notice filed by the Defendant, I find that the Appeal does not meet the requirements under ARDC 44.19. I briefly set out my reasons below.
5. The Appeal notice filed by the Defendant includes a document entitled ‘Details of Appeal’, wherein the Defendant sets out 3 grounds of appeal, all pertaining to the Claimant’s failure to serve his notice period with the Defendant.
6. In the Appeal Notice, the Defendant states the grounds for appeal to be as follows:
“i. The Claimant has failed on its contractual obligations to serve the notice period,
ii. It is the Court’s view that the Claimant was under a contractual obligation to serve a notice period. In failing to do so without the Defendant’s consent, he should not be entitled to seek any remuneration with respect to a notice period, and
iii. The Defendant submits that it suffered as a result of the Claimant’s failure to serve a notice period, as the Defendant submits that it was left in a difficult position without any notice period and an appropriate handover.”
7. Throughout the Permission Hearing, the Defendant sought to argue that the above points were not considered by the Judge at the Claim Hearing. However, as I have previously explained to the Defendant, it failed to submit a counterclaim formally before this court, and therefore its alleged counterclaim arguments could not be considered by the Court.
8. In addition, the Defendant also repeated the same argument that it presented at the Claim Hearing, namely that the DIFC Courts do not have jurisdiction over the Claimant’s claim for end of service entitlements. This argument has already been addressed within my judgment, and I find that the Defendant has failed to present any persuasive submissions to suggest that its appeal would have a prospect of success, therefore, I find that the Appeal Notice fails in form insofar as it does not comply with ARDC 44.19.
9. In light of the above finding, I find that the Appeal does not have a prospect of success.
10. I also do not find there to be another compelling reason for the Appeal to be heard, and therefore the Appeal fails to satisfy the requirements of ARDC 44.19 and must be dismissed henceforth.
11. Each party shall bear their own costs.