Imirtu v Mrawin [2023] DIFC SCT 071 (03 April 2023)


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!



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

The Dubai International Financial Centre


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Imirtu v Mrawin [2023] DIFC SCT 071 (03 April 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2023/DCT_071.html
Cite as: [2023] DIFC SCT 71, [2023] DIFC SCT 071

[New search] [Help]


Imirtu v Mrawin [2023] DIFC SCT 071

April 03, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 071/2023

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 NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

IMIRTU

Claimant

and

MRAWIN

Defendant


Hearing :23 March 2023
Judgment :3 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER


UPON the Claim dated 13 February 2023

AND UPON the Hearing listed before H.E Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 23 March 2023, with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 21,000 inclusive of 5% VAT.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fees in the sum of AED 1,050.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 3 April 2023
At: 11am

THE REASONS

Parties

1. The Claimant is Mirtu (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Dubai and located at Dubai Design District, Dubai, UAE.

2. The Defendant is Mrawin (the “Defendant”), a company registered and located in DMCC, Dubai, UAE.

Background and Procedural History

3. The underlying dispute arises in regard to an alleged breach of Contract dated 12 September 2022 (the “Agreement”) by the Defendant.

4. On 13 February 2023, the Claimant filed a Claim seeking the payment of two invoices in the sum of AED 21,000.

5. On 20 February 2023, the Defendant filed its defense setting out its intention to defend all of the claim.

6. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 1 March 2023 but were unable to reach a settlement.

7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 23 March 2023, at which the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives were in attendance.

Claim

8. The Claimant submits that the Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to pay the two months’ notice as per Clause 3.1 of the Agreement which states that:

“3. Cancellation

3.1 This Contract may be terminated by the Client or the Agency on a written two-month notice stating the reason for termination. The agency will charge for any outstanding work or work that was undertaken at the time of termination.”

9. Therefore, the Claimant claims the total sum of AED 21,000 in relation to two-months termination notice.

Defence

10. In response, the Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to deliver what was agreed in the Agreement. Therefore, on 12 December 2022, the Defendant decided to terminate the Agreement with immediate effect.

11. The Defendant submits that due to the non-performance by the Claimant as per the Agreement, they have lost a crucial time of 3 months after launch of the business which affected them financially.

12. Therefore, the Defendant submit that they are not liable to pay the Claimant the two-months-notice period and/or damages.

Finding

13. The parties signed the Agreement on 12 September 2022.

14. On 12 December 2022, by way of an email, the Defendant terminated the Agreement. submitting that the Claimant failed to comply with the Agreement.

15. The Claimant provided evidence of the work done, which consisted of reports, event proposal and emails between the Claimant and the Defendant.

16. The Defendant failed to file any evidence of non-performance to support his submissions.

17. Therefore, pursuant to clause 3.1 of the Agreement, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the two-months’ notice in the sum of AED 21,000 inclusive of the 5% VAT.

Conclusion

18. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 21,000 inclusive of 5% VAT.

19. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fees in the sum of AED 1,050.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2023/DCT_071.html