Claim No. SCT 047/2013
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
Court
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler
of DubaiRuler
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
OF
DIFC COURTS
Tribunal
DIFC Courts
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
Between
DARINA
Claimant
Claimant
v
DAX
Defendant
Defendant
Hearing: 7 November 2013
Judgment: 5 December 2013
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
UPONhearing the Claimant and the Defendant
AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded in the Court
Court
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The claim be dismissed.
The reasons:
1. The Claimant alleged that she had an oral agreement ("the agreement") with the Defendant to be employed in a business development role ("the BD role") at the Defendant's office in Dubai, if she was successful in creating that role.
2. The Claimant alleged that she had fulfilled her obligations under the terms of the agreement, but the Defendant had breached the agreement and had not fulfilled its obligations and had awarded the BD role to someone else.
3. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 7 November 2013 I heard both parties' submissions.
4. In her Particulars of Claim and witness statement, the Claimant argued that she had initiated contact with Dax, the Managing Partner of the Defendant's office in Dubai and had asked him if he would be interested in creating a BD role for the Dubai Office which he was, and then Dax had met with the Claimant on 8 May 2013 when she provided him with market statistics, client and sector information and competitor intelligence.
5. The Claimant further asserted that Dax had understood the value in having a BD role and the value it could bring to the Dubai office, but had suggested that approval needed to be sought first from the UK team. Therefore, she had a video conference with Dax, Director of BD/Marketing at the UK Office, and she had provided Dax during that conference with information, ideas and recommendations regarding the structure of the new BD role at the Dubai office which ended with the suggestion that the Claimant might visit the UK office to follow up on this matter.
6. In its defence and witness statement, the Defendant argued that the Claimant was not entitled to the relief sought or any relief pursuant to her Particulars of Claim and denied that it was liable to the Claimant either as alleged in her Particulars of Claim or at all, and maintained that, save during the course of the first meeting with the Claimant, Dax had made it clear that there were no current plans to recruit a BD manager for the Dubai office and that any appointment would need prior approval from the London management team, accordingly there has been no guarantee extended to the Claimant that a position would be or become available at any time in the near future and moreover, the Defendant was looking to hire a BD manager only after 18 months or in two year time.
7. I have examined both parties' submissions and evidence in support, and 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 compensate the Claimant for any breach of agreement, damages or loss of profit.
8. Therefore, the Claimant's Claim is to be dismissed
Issued by:
Nassir Al Nasser
Judicial Officer
Date: 5 December 2013
At: 4pm