Daffodil v Daan [2013] DIFC SCT 001 (30 December 2013)

Claim No. SCT 001/2013

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

Court

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler

Ruler
of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Tribunal
OF THE DIFC COURTS
DIFC Courts

BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

BETWEEN

DAFFODIL

Claimant

Claimant

and

DAAN

Defendant

Defendant

Hearing: 26 December 2013

Judgment: 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

 AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court

Court
file

UPONhearing the Claimant and the Defendant

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 5,402

The reasons:

1. The Claimant alleged that he had been employed by the Defendant from 28 December 2010 until 05 October 2013 when he submitted his resignation.
2. The Claimant requested that the Defendant pay him benefit of end of Employment Contract. The Defendant had refused to pay the Claimant, which led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.
3. No settlement was reached between the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 26 December 2013 I heard the Defendant submissions, and the Claimant did not attend the hearing.
4. In his Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that the Defendant had destroyed his future by giving him bad feedback about his employment history to other companies that he applied to, and argued that he was under discrimination caused by the Defendant's HR department, on the basis that he was of Egyptian nationality, by refusing his request for cross training. The Claimant specified his claims on damages for loss of future profits and compensation for discrimination.
5. In its defence, the Defendant confirmed that the Claimant is entitled to his end of service benefits as calculated on the final settlement document but rejected all of the Claimant's other allegations. The Defendant filed, in his submission dated 4 December 2013, a Counterclaim
Counterclaim
against the Claimant for not leaving the employment accommodation at the end of his employment contract.
6. I have examined both parties' submissions and I have found that the final settlement of dues submitted by the Defendant is reasonable and in accordance with the DIFC
DIFC
Law of Employment, and therefore the Claimant is entitled to a total sum of AED 5,402.
7. Furthermore, I have found that the evidence submitted by the Claimant is neither sufficient nor reasonable to establish that the Defendant is contractually or legally liable to pay any extra amount beyond what has been decided above in paragraph 6 of this Order.
8. As regards to the Defendant's Counterclaim, the Defendant should file a separate claim.

Issued by:

Maha AlMehairi

Judicial Officer

Date of Issue: 30 December 2013

At: 9am