Claim No. SCT 050/2013
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler
of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
OF
DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
Between
DEDRICK
Claimant
v
DAYA
Defendant
Hearing: 9 October 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 on the
Court
file
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. This claim be dismissed.
The reasons:
1. The Claimant alleged that he had been employed by the Defendant from 18 June 2009 until 31 July 2013 when his employment was terminated.
2. The Claimant requested that the Defendant pay him the benefits due at the end of his Employment Contract. The Defendant had refused to pay the Claimant, which had led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.
3. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 9 October 2013 I heard both parties' submissions.
4. In his Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that Clause 13.1 of his employment contract stated that he was required to be given at least 3 months' written notice of termination of his employment contract, but the Defendant had breached that Clause and had terminated him by email sent out to all Middle East staff on 30 July 2013 and by termination letter. The Claimant specified his claims as unpaid 3 months' notice salary and compensation for unpaid bonus for the financial year 2012/2103.
5. In its defence, the Defendant argued that the Claimant had agreed in writing to waive the 3 months' legal termination notice, reducing the notice period, as initially had been agreed in Clause 13.1 of the employment contract, by which either party could serve written notice upon the other to bring the contract to an end at any time before or on 31 July 2013. The Defendant further argued that the Claimant was not eligible for a bonus according to the firm's bonus scheme and that he had not had a formal performance review for the year to April 2013 as he did not qualify for that as his performance had been poor.
6. I have examined both parties' submissions and have seen a letter dated 29 April 2013 addressed from the Defendant to the Claimant entitled "Reducing Notice Period" and signed by the Claimant on 30 April 2013 which states at the bottom that "I agree to the terms of this letter", which reads as follows:
"Dear Dedrick, Further to your recent meeting with Daya and Daya, I am writing to confirm that we have agreed to amend your employment contract by including a reducing notice period. Notwithstanding clause 13.1 of your employment contract dated 18 June 2009 we agree that either we or you may serve written notice at any time during the period between 29 April 2013 and 31 July 2013 to terminate your employment with Daya on 31 July 2013"
7. I am of the view that the Claimant's statement in the above cited "reducing Notice Period" letter is clear evidence that the 3 months' notice has been agreed to be waived by both parties agreement, therefore I have found that the Claimant is not entitled to claim such compensation.
8. Furthermore, 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 pay any amount to the Claimant as a bonus for the financial year 2012/2103.
Issued by:
Nassir Al Nasser
Judicial Officer
Date: 5 December 2013
At: 4pm
