Claim No. SCT 104/2021
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 MHEIRI
LAKSHIN RESTAURANT & BAR LTD
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI
UPONreviewing the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 23 May 2021 seeking permission to appeal against the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 5 May 2021
AND UPONthe Defendant’s request for the Appeal Notice to be dealt without a hearing
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.
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 15 June 2021
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. This is an Appeal brought by the Defendant in this Claim, against my judgment dated 5 May 2021 in this matter (the “Judgment”). The Appeal Notice dated 23 May 2021 sets out the Defendant’s request for the permission to appeal against the Judgment to be dealt with on paper.
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 fails in form insofar as ARDC 44.29 sets out that an appeal notice must be accompanied by grounds of the appeal relied upon in the appeal, as well as a skeleton argument, which the Defendant failed to provide. The Appeal notice filed by the Defendant included points that were already discussed and set out in the Judgment.
6. In the Appeal Notice, the Defendant states the grounds for appeal to be as follows:
“This Judgement was passed as per Section 63 Sub Section (2) which is related to the case “if EMPLOYEE terminates the contract. While we have submitted all the documents as a proof that this case falls under Section 63 Sub Section (3) which is a contract terminated by an EMPLOYER for a cause and as per Section 63, sub section 3 Clause (a) which reads as “the Employee shall not be entitled to receive any payment of Wages in lieu of their notice period”. [sic]
7. The Defendant appears to be making reference to provisions set out in DIFC Law No. 3 of 2012, which was amended by DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019. The articles quoted above are no longer in effect, having been repealed by the current DIFC Employment Law, therefore do not constitute an error in law or fact.
8. The Defendant also submits that the Claimant was paid 22 days after her immediate termination for her untaken annual leave and public holiday. This appears to be a separate issue that does not relate to the Claimant’s entitlement to her unpaid notice period after termination.
9. In light of the above findings, 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.