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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Dubai International Financial Centre |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Najjar v Nashir [2024] DIFC SCT 052 (10 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_052.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 52, [2024] DIFC SCT 052 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Najjar v Nashir [2024] DIFC SCT 052
September 10, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No. SCT 052/2024
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 MHEIRIBETWEEN
NAJJAR
Claimant
and
NASHIR
Defendant
Hearing : 10 September 2024 Judgment : 10 September 2024 JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPON this Claim being filed on 1 February 2024
AND UPON a hearing having been held before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 10 September 2024, with the Claimant in attendance and the Defendant’s representative absent (the “Hearing”)
AND PURSUANTto Rule 53.61 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts, it is stated that: “If a defendant does not attend the hearing and the Claimant does attend the hearing, the SCT may decide the claim on the basis of the evidence of the Claimant only.”
ND UPON Areviewing the documents and evidence submitted in the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 43,000.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 860.57.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 10 September 2024
At: 3pmTHE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Najjar (the “Claimant”), an employee of the Defendant.
2. The Defendant is Nashir (the “Defendant”), a restaurant located in the DIFC, Dubai, the UAE.
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to an Employment Contract dated 18 April 2023 (the “Employment Contract”).
4. The Claimant commenced working with the Defendant on 1 June 2023 and was employed in the role of Assistant General Manager with a monthly salary of AED 25,000.
5. The Claimant was facing issues with his employer relating to continued delays in salary payments. On 23 July 2024, the Claimant requested from the Defendant to utilise his pending Public Holidays and annual leave for 2024. The Claimant utilised his Public Holiday from 25 to 29 July 2024 and took the whole month of August 2024 off for annual leave.
6. On 1 September 2024, the Claimant resigned from his employment with immediate effect due to non-payment of salaries.
7. On 1 February 2024, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking unpaid salary for the period of 1 June to 23 July 2024 to the amount of AED 43,000 (the “Claim”).
8. A Consultation was listed before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 5 August 2024, but the parties were unable to reach a settlement. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 10 September 2024, with the Claimant in attendance and the Defendant’s representative absent although served with notice.
9. RDC 53.61 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts stipulates that “if a defendant does not attend the hearing and the claimant does attend the hearing, the SCT may decide the claim on basis of the evidence of the Claimant only”.
Discussion
10. This dispute is governed by DIFC Employment Law No. 4 of 2021 (the “DIFC Employment Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract.
11. This is a very straightforward matter; the Claimant did provide evidence that he was still an employee of the Defendant until 1 September 2024 when he filed his resignation.
12. The Court is satisfied with the evidence submitted by the Claimant to support the Claim. The Claimant is entitled to receive his remuneration until the end of August as employees should be paid their monthly salary even when they are on annual leave. The Claimant is only requesting his monthly salary from 1 June until 23 July 2024.
13. The Defendant failed to provide any evidence to support that the Claimant was paid his monthly salary from 1 June to 23 July 204, as such the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of AED 43,000 for that period.
14. In light of this, I have determined that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the amount of AED 43,000 for the period of 1 June to 23 July 2024.
15. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 860.57.
