Fedora v The Fawcett LLC [2015] DIFC SCT 008 (25 March 2015)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Thank you very much for your support!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Dubai International Financial Centre


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Fedora v The Fawcett LLC [2015] DIFC SCT 008 (25 March 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2015/sct_008.html
Cite as: [2015] DIFC SCT 8, [2015] DIFC SCT 008

[New search] [Help]


Fedora v The Fawcett LLC [2015] DIFC SCT 008

March 25, 2015 Judgments,SCT - Judgments and Orders

Claim No. SCT 008/2015 

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

Court
 

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

Ruler

Ruler
of Dubai 

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Tribunal

BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE OMAR AL MUHAIRI

BETWEEN

FEDORA

Claimant

Claimant

and

THE FAWCETT LLC

Defendant

Defendant

Hearing: 12 March 2015

Judgment:23 March 2015


JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE OMAR AL MUHAIRI


Background

1.The Claimant is Fedora (“the Claimant”), employed by the Fawcett LLC in the DIFC

DIFC
.

2. The Defendant is the Fawcett LLC (“the Defendant”), Registered in the DIFC.

3. On 12 February 2013, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Defendant as cashier, with a total salary of AED 2,500 per month.

4. On 26 January 2015, the Claimant filed an SCT Claim alleging that the Defendant had not complied with the DIFC Employment Law for the following reasons:

a. The end of service benefits were calculated incorrectly: 7 days for each year rather than 21 days for each year.

b. The Defendant had provided her with a misleading contract.

c. The Defendant had not provided medical insurance for the last 7 months and the Claimant lost the opportunity to undergo surgery.

d. An amount was deducted from her salary for four months to cover the utilities at the staff accommodation.

e. AED 4,000 for accommodation costs.

f. Repatriating ticket back to home country had not been provided.

5. The Claimant is seeking compensation in regards to the end of service benefits, medical treatment and for the surgery that she missed and all future expenditure for treatments, utilities deduction, AED 4,000 for accommodation costs, repatriating ticket back to her home country, cash tips from 15 October 2014 to 15 November 2014, credit card tips from 1 December 2014 to 23 December 2014 and the Claimant’s part of service charge for the last 3 months.

The Hearing

6. On 12 March 2015, a hearing was held before me. Both the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative attended the hearing in which the Defendant was asked to file the breakdown for the payments they agrees to pay.

Discussion

7. The Defendant at the hearing and pursuant to the Court

Court
’s request provided a breakdown of what will be paid to the Claimant which included the following: 

  1. End of Service
    Service
    benefits – AED 2,160
  2. Cash tips from 15 October 2014 to 15 November 2014 – AED 1,192
  3. Credit Card tips from 1 December 2014 to 23 December 2014 – AED 135.59
  4. Utilities deducted – AED 443.63
  5. Difference in December Salary – AED 82.42
  6. Court Fees – AED 202
  7. Repatriating Ticket to home country

The Defendant admitted that the Claimant is entitled to the above mentioned payments.

Medical Compensation

8. The Claimant provided a medical report from Belhoul Speciality Hospital dated 15 March 2015, but has failed to provide any invoice that confirms the amount paid by the Claimant. However, the medical report did not mention surgery but in fact it requested a CT scan to decide whether surgery or medical treatment was needed. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to payments for medical treatments which have not been taken.

Housing Allowance

9. The Defendant provided staff accommodation for all employees, which the Claimant had the benefit of using and continued using even after the termination of her employment contract (during the notice period). Furthermore, the Claimant left the accommodation without the Defendant’s knowledge. As such, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that she paid AED 4000 as accommodation costs. Therefore, the Claimant is not entitled to accommodation costs.

Conclusion

10. For all the above reasons, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 4,215.64 and provide a Repatriating ticket to her home country.

11. Accordingly, I dismiss any other claims advanced by the Claimant.

Issued by:

Nassir Al Nasser

Judicial Officer

Date of issue: 25 March 2015

At: 12pm


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2015/sct_008.html